Kyriakos Hadijianastasi v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber Transport Case Reference: D/2021/69 Heard by CVP video hearing Heard on: 28th April 2022 Decision given on: 4th May 2022 Before HHJ DAVID DIXON DAVID RAWSTHORN STUART JAMES Between KYRIAKOS HADJIANASTASI and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Appellant Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: Unrepresented For the Respondent: Claire Jackson Decision: The appeal is dismissed and the Registrar’s decision remains. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 Background to Appeal REASONS 2. 3. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 6th October 2021 to remove him from the Register of ADIs. The Registrar’s reasons for removal, in summary, were that the Appellant had obtained convictions for exceeding the speed limit on 31st October 2019 and 9th June 2021. The Registrar took the view that the offending was serious, and accordingly he was not allowed to remain on the Register. 4. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision. Appeal to the Tribunal 5. 6. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 28th October 2021, argues he would like to be allowed to continue to instruct. The two admitted speeding offences are things he is ashamed of and could have been avoided. The Appellant provided a statement setting out the circumstances of the offences. He indicates for the 2019 offence he was running late for a student so took a shortcut. Whilst heading downhill he lost concentration and allowed the car to run faster than allowed and he went through a 30mph camera at 36mph. He indicated he was unaware he had to report the offence to the Registrar. The second offence from 2021 took place when he allowed his car to reach 35mph in a 30 mph zone. He describes how the mobile police camera van was almost hidden in some bushes, close to a national speed limit sign, which he suggests wasn’t right. He maintains at the time he had marital problems and stress from that. He should have contacted the Registrar about matters but didn’t for that reason. 7. He indicated that he is well aware of the standards required and this sort of thing will not be repeated. 8. The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the Appellant had failed to indicate the 2019 offence, but she had learnt about it from the DVLA. As a result of that a warning letter was sent to the Appellant, indicating he must abide by the rules of the road and disclosure was necessary. As the Appellant accrued the second offence after that, and failed to notify her of the same, she came to the view he was not fit and proper, and removed his name from the Register. Mode of Determination 9. The case was listed for oral hearing and was carried out via the CVP video enabled hearing system. 10. The Appellant attended and was unrepresented. The Respondent was represented by Ms Claire Jackson of the ADI Appeals Team. 11. The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence containing 49 pages. The Hearing 12. Ms Jackson indicated the Registrar’s position was as outlined within the documentation within the bundle. 13. The Appellant indicated that he didn’t believe that two speeding offences were so serious as to affect his life and that of his family. He accepted both driving offences, but stressed they were at times he was on his own in the car not with students. He described how sometimes when you are driving your mind drifts to different things and that happens to everyone, “we are not robots” after all. 14. He explain the 2019 offence involved him being late for a lesson and taking a shortcut to get there on time. He accepted that he was “pushing things” to get there and exceeding the speed limit to do so. He stressed he wasn’t going 50 mph or similar, but was trying to make up time. 15. He indicated he didn’t report that matter as he wasn’t aware he had to. He accepted he had signed the declaration, and should have been aware, but wasn’t. He said he did receive the warning letter after the Registrar was made aware of the conviction. He accepted the letter was clear and blunt in its terms. 16. For the 2021 matter he said he was stressed at the time over marital problems. He was driving to a lesson and his mind wandered as he did so to his problems and he acelerated too early towards a change of speed sign. He accepted he felt disappointed that the police had chosen to put their safety camera at the particular location. 17. He was asked to explain why he didn’t report this matter to the Registrar and he said he had health issues around then, including a two week stay in hospital through COVID. He said it just hadn’t occurred to him at the time. The Law 18. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the Applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” to have his name on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors – see s. 125 (3) and s. 127 (3) (e) Road Traffic Act 19881. 19. The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory criteria rests with the Registrar. 20. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 8082, the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition thus: “..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. 1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/V/crossheading/registration 2 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/808.html 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. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements”. 21. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Registrar’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re- hearing i.e. the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as is considered appropriate to the Registrar’s reasons3 as the Registrar is the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision- making process. Conclusion 22. The Tribunal considered carefully all the papers and submissions made before it. 23. Here the Appellant on two separate occasions has driven his motor car over the specified limits. For both he asserts it was a lack of temporary attention that lead to a momentary error. The Tribunal finds that hard to accept. 24. For the first offence the account given of exceeding the speed limit when he was late for a student was an admission of deliberately speeding to make up time. For the second offence the account of being surprised where the speed camera was and that he was approaching a national speed limit area, indicates he accelerated too earlier for the section of road he was travelling along. Neither is appropriate driving, particularly for a professional driver. The Tribunal was concerned at the Appellant’s suggestion that not paying attention when you are driving just happens. 25. The Appellant indicates he didn’t inform the Registrar the first time as he was unaware of the requirement to do so. The Tribunal has heard similar accounts before and finds it difficult to understand, however the benefit of the doubt is given to the Appellant. For the second failure the Appellant suggests that he was under stress/was ill and didn’t remember to declare. The Tribunal doesn’t accept that position. The Appellant had been told a short while before of the importance of declaring matters and it seems to us, having heard the Appellant, that he was trying to hide matters. 26. The Tribunal is concerned that despite a clear warning the Appellant has failed to declare the second conviction. Honesty and integrity are of particular importance to the professional standing of an ADI, and here it seems to us the failure to declare strikes at the heart of this. 27. The Tribunal was particularly concerned about the Appellant’s approach to this matter generally. He didn’t seem to have learnt from the first or the second offence. At one stage he suggested, “if this happens again,” indicating he was still of the view it might. The Tribunal came to the clear view the Appellant didn’t appreciate the severity of his actions, both in committing the offences and then failing to report them. A man who doesn’t understand that 3 See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html. Approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf. the Home Department [2016] UKSC paragraph State for 45 of at – doesn’t have the appropriate degree of understanding to teach in our view. If he is unable to take onboard important lessons like these, he is not to be considered fit and proper to instruct. 28. Further to this, it seems to the Tribunal that it would undermine confidence in the Register if an ADI who has twice in recent times exceeded the speed limit, in these circumstances, and failed to declare both, was allowed to remain. ADIs have particular responsibilities to teach young students and to do so without appearing hypercritical. Here, particularly with the Appellant’s mind set as shown during the hearing, it would amount to “do what I say, not what I do” which would simply be an inappropriate message to endorse. The Registrar had no option but to remove him from the Register and her decision is upheld. 29. This appeal is therefore dismissed with immediate effect. (Signed) HHJ David Dixon David Rawsthorn James Stuart DATE: 28th April 2022 5