Martyn Eyre v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 00318 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0692 FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER (TRANSPORT) Heard by Cloud Video Platform On: 24 February 2024 Decision given on: 13 March 2025 Before JUDGE DAMIEN MCMAHON TRIBUNAL MEMBER DAVID RAWSTHORN TRIBUNAL MEMBER MARTIN SMITH Between MARTYN EYRE -and- REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Representation: For the Appellant: The Appellant appeared on his own behalf For the Respondent: Mr. D. Russell. Appellant Respondent Decision: The appeal is Allowed. The Decision of the Respondent made on 19 July 2024 is set aside. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 REASONS 1. This appeal was listed for hearing on 24 February 2025 for oral hearing by CVP as directed by the GRC Registrar. The Appellant attended along with his wife. Both gave oral evidence. Oral evidence and submissions were given by the Respondent’s representative. 2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 19 July 2024 to refuse the Appellant’s application for entry onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Register’), on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register, pursuant to section 125(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’), due to him having been convicted of a motoring offence, by way of a Fixed Penalty Notice on 8 September 2022, for breach of requirements as to control of a motor vehicle, mobile telephones, etc., in respect of which 6 penalty points were endorsed on his driving licence (that were to expire on 8 September 2025) 3. The Appellant submitted an appeal on 13 August 2024, against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms: - that he had always strived to maintain a high standard of teaching with honesty, integrity and professionalism; - - - - - that he made a mistake in reading a text on his mobile telephone while stationary at traffic lights on 8 September 2022 – something he would never normally do – for which he was wholly regretful, made no excuses and had truly learned a valuable lesson; that he had worked as a Sales Professional for 35 years before being made redundant in December 2020 due to the pandemic and made a career change to become a driving instructor, a career that suited his personality as he was patient and had a good reputation locally where there was a high demand for driving lessons; that he had qualified as an Approved Driving Instructor [‘ADI’] on 6 October2023 after investing considerable time and money; that his trainee licence had been revoked for the same motoring offence, a decision that had been upheld on appeal on 14 May 2024, but that he had, thereafter, been invited by the Respondent to apply for a full ADI licence and he had done so; that he had built a successful driving instructor business since March 2022 and was an honest, upstanding, integral member of the community. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 4. In his representations to the Respondent in respect of the Respondent’s intention to refuse his application to have his name entered onto the Register, the Appellant, essentially, recited the representations he subsequently included in his Notice of Appeal. In addition, however, he accepted that he had broken the ADI Code of Conduct, that he ‘severely regretted’ and for which he was sorry. He pointed out that he had committed no further motoring offences and that he had an exemplary record otherwise as an ADI; that after his trainee licence had been revoked for the same issue, he had continued to train and had passed his Part 3 test on 6 October 2023; that the majority of his pupils came from recommendations; that the record showed his commitment and dedication to driving instruction; that he was ideally suited to be an ADI and presented no risk to the public, being a reliable and upstanding person. 5. The Appellant submitted a number of character references from pupils and his trainer. While some weight was attached to these, in themselves, such references could not be determinative. 6. The Respondent had furnished a Response to the appeal dated 23 December 2024. This stated that the Appellant’s trainee licence had been revoked on 9 November 2022 due to the instant said motoring offence having been committed by the Appellant and an appeal against that decision by the Respondent had been dismissed by a previous Tribunal on 14 May 2024. The Response stated that the Appellant had applied for entry onto the Register as a fully-qualified ADI on 4 June 2024 but this had been refused on 19 July2024 (the date of the decision under appeal) on the basis that, due to the Appellant having committed the same said motoring offence, he continued not to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered onto the Register. The reasons offered by the Respondent for its decision were, in terms, in addition to the contents of the decision under appeal: - - - - account had to be taken not only of the Appellant’s driving instructional ability, his character, behaviour and standard of conduct that, for an ADI, was expected to be at a higher level than that of an ordinary motorist; that driving instruction was a responsible and demanding task that should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen sense for road safety and, in committing the said motoring offence, the Appellant did not display those high standards; government had increased the penalties for motoring offences as those offences contributed to a significant number of road casualties; that the Respondent could not condone the commission of motoring offences of this nature as, to do so, would, effectively, sanction such behaviour that would be offensive to other ADIs, and aspiring ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law (asserting that the instant offence, committed on 8 September 2022, had been recent). 7. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Respondent’s representative stated that the Appellant had made application for a trainee licence in March 2022 – before the commission of the said motoring offence – and in September2022, the Appellant © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 8. 9. had been issued with a second trainee licence Appellant, while his application for a third trainee licence on 20 March 2023 had been refused and unsuccessfully appealed to a Tribunal on 14 May 2024. The Respondent’s representative confirmed that the Appellant had advised the Respondent of his conviction for the said motoring offence when he applied to have his name entered as an ADI on the Register (but pointed out that the Respondent would already have been aware of this fact due to his appeal against the decision to refuse his third trainee licence). In his oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Appellant submitted hat the said offence occurred ‘a long time ago’ and that he had ‘owned up’ to the Respondent and his trainer straight away; that he had never been ‘in trouble’; that, when the offence had been committed, there was no pupil in the vehicle; that he passed his Part 3 test on his third, and final, attempt; that he was ‘worthy’ of doing the job [that is, being an ADI]; that there was a shortage of local driving instructors; that, if the instant appeal was unsuccessful, he could not start the process of becoming qualified again until 2026; that he was not a risk to the public and wished to continue working as an ADI. In response to questions from the Tribunal, the Appellant stated he did not know why he had read the text that was from his daughter concerning ferry times, and that the mobile telephone had been sitting on the seat in the vehicle. He stated that he had been invited by the Respondent to apply to apply to have his name entered on the Register as an ADI after his unsuccessful appeal against the decision not to grant him a third trainee licence [albeit the Appellant stated the said decision was to revoke his third trainee licence] for the exact same motoring offence. He stated he had been detected as, unknown to him, an unmarked police car was sitting beside him when he picked up his mobile telephone to read the text. 10. In response to a question from the Respondent’s representative, the Appellant confirmed that he did advise pupils of the dangers and costs of using mobile telephones while in a vehicle. He advised that if a pupil was in the vehicle, he kept his mobile telephone in the glove compartment of the vehicle. 11. The Appellant’s wife stated that changing his career to that of driving instruction was the best thing the Appellant had done as it showed him he could fulfil his ambitions; that he was very committed to his career and that the family had been badly affected, income-wise, by the decision; that people were keen to receive driving instruction from him and he would be an asset to driving instruction. 12. In closing, the Respondent’s representative noted that while the Appellant had accepted responsibility for what he had done, the said motoring offence was serious and that even an ordinary motorist would lose their driving licence in such circumstances. [The Tribunal doubted that this was correct]. He confirmed that should this appeal be dismissed, the Appellant could re-apply but would have to pass Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the qualifying test again. 13. All of this evidence, and every other piece of evidence and submissions, both written and oral from, and on behalf of the parties, was considered by the Tribunal. While there were cogent arguments and grounds to dismiss this appeal, the fact is that the Appellant had already been penalised by the Respondent for exactly the same offence – not a subsequent offence. The Tribunal decided, on the balance of © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 probability, in considering the question of proportionality, that the Appellant had now ‘served his time’ and learned a lesson to the extent that this appeal should, somewhat unusually, be allowed, effectively allowing the Appellant to re-start his journey to becoming a fully-qualified ADI in 6 months’ time. 14. Notwithstanding the foregoing and the Decision of the Tribunal in this appeal, conditions do require that an applicant for entry onto the Register (the Appellant in this case) to be a ‘fit and proper person’. This requires account to be taken of an applicant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate. 15. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Respondent’s decision-making process. 16. As a matter of law, the standing of the Respondent could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence undermined, if it were known that a person whose name was included in the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours or been convicted in relation to an offence, substantially material to the question of fitness. This can be in respect of behaviour pertaining to motoring matters and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness and prudence; indeed, it would, indeed, be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked. 17. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 confirmed that - “..... 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 including position to carry out his function of scrutiny consideration of the implications of any convictions of an applicant or a Registered Approved Driving Instructor. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.” effectively, 18. In reaching the Decision, the Tribunal took into account all of the evidence and submissions received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal. 19. Also notwithstanding the Decision made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal must bear in mind the significant importance which attaches to the integrity of the Register. For the public to have trust in it, the Respondent must act in a way that encourages belief that those on it have high standards. Allowing those who do not meet those standards would undermine the trust placed in it with serious consequences for © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 those who do maintain the necessary high standards. These are matters of wider, and public interest, which attract significant weight even where, as in this case, being refused entry onto the Register, potentially may have significant consequences for the Appellant. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Signed: Damien McMahon, Tribunal Judge Date: 11 March 2025 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025