Gavin Sharp v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Decision notice Heard at Field House, London On 31 October 2019 Appeal Reference: D/2019/374 Before JUDGE CHRIS HUGHES TRIBUNAL MEMBERS GEORGE INCH & ANDREW GUEST Between GAVIN SHARP and REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Appellant Respondent Appearances:- Appellant: did not attend First Respondent: Simon Davis Cases Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (2010 EWCA Civ 808) DECISION AND REASONS 1. In these proceedings the Appellant was give notice of the time and place of the hearing on 23 September through communication to the email address he had used to lodge his appeal. He was asked to confirm attendance and warned that if he failed to attend the tribunal could continue in his absence. The tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of rule 36 of the GRC rules are satisfied, he has been notified of the hearing and in the circumstances it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to proceed in his absence. 2. The Appellant had 3 penalty points on his licence following a speeding incident in August 2017. He started the process of qualifying to be an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) and in the light of this endorsement the Registrar drew to his attention the importance of ADI’s obeying the law with respect to driving by a letter of 23 March 2018. he was issued with a trainee licence to enable him to gain practical experience in providing instruction in the driving of motor vehicles which was valid from 5 November 2018 to 4 May 2019. Shortly before the expiry of that licence the Appellant made an application to the Registrar for a second trainee licence. In completing the form he replied to the question “since the date you applied for registration as a potential driving instructor have you received any fixed penalties for motoring offences” with the answer “no”. The Registrar wrote to him on 24 April pointing out that he had a further endorsement of 3 points for speeding on 14 August 2018. The Registrar gave him time to make representations before she determined whether or not he was a fit and proper person to be an ADI. 3. By a letter dated 26 April he explained:- “The second fixed penalty was caught on a static camera somewhere in Bracknell while I was working temporarily for Asda home shopping delivering groceries. I left employment with them on 2nd November 2018 as I was starting my new career as a PDI on the 5th November. However a week or so after I left I received a fixed penalty notice for the offence of exceeding the speed limit through a fixed camera at 35mph stating Asda had given them my details and said I was driving at the time of the offence. I did not recall the incident and some time had elapsed since the offence as it was now November and the offence had occurred in August. I sought advice from Thames Valley Police but was advised that if I went to court and was found guilty (my only other option) the fine could be considerably more as well as costs so decided to plead guilty to the fixed penalty offence. An error I am now living to regret. … The final point is why I didn’t notify yourselves and declare the fixed penalty is a genuine error on my part. At that time I was helping a family member with illness as well as trying to start my training as a PDI this is the reason I am applying to extend my training period. Being a hectic time I completely forgot to declare it.”” 4. The Registrar gave notice of her intention to refuse him a second trainee licence by a letter of 21 May 2019. 5. In his notice of appeal he pointed out that he had received both convictions before he started training. He claimed that he had inquired of his training company and “online” and had been told that he could have a maximum of six points and still become an ADI. He stated that he was mature, had held responsible jobs, had held a licence since October 1986 and had a safe and accident free driving history. He claimed that he had a good relationship with his pupils and helped them feel more at ease. He had made sacrifices to become an ADI ad it was a career he enjoyed. 6. In resisting the PPEAL THE Registrar relied on the two convictions, the failure to notify her within 7 days of the conviction and the failure to declare the conviction on applying for a second trainee licence. She emphasised that training young people to drive was a responsible task which should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety, standards and behaviour above those of an ordinary motorist. She emphasised the significance of speed in causing road accidents and that if she were to permit such an individual on the Register she could be seen as condoning such motoring offences and could undermine public confidence in the Register. Consideration 7. While the tribunal has some sympathy with the appellant in the circumstances in which he finds himself the Tribunal is satisfied that there are no grounds to disturb the Registrar’s decision. The inattention which led to the two convictions for speeding is significant, as is the failure to make the declaration of the second conviction when he became aware of it. The Registrar is correct to draw attention to the serious risks of excessive speed and that to include the Appellant on the Register would be to condone such inattentive driving. The Registrar’s approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (2010 EWCA Civ 808), in which Richards LJ said:- “….. the condition is not simply that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor; it is that he is a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register. Registration carries with it an official seal of approval …..the maintenance of public confidence in the register is important. For that purpose the Registrar must be in a position to carry out his function of scrutiny effectively, including consideration of the implications of any convictions of an applicant or a registered ADI. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.” 8. The appeal is dismissed. Signed Hughes Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Date: