Ali v Registrar Of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 756 (GRC) ()

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 756 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0556 First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber Transport Determined at an oral hearingon 18 th June 2025 Decision given on 23 rd June 2025 Before HHJ DAVID DIXON DAVID RAWSTHORN MARTIN SMITH Between MOHAMMED IMRAN ALI Appellant and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Decision: The appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. REASONS Background to Appeal 1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 30 th October 2024 to remove his name from the Register. 2. The Registrar's reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had informed the Registrar that he had been involved in an inadvertent and unfortunate incident, where he had assaulted his wife. Initially the Appellant indicated he was cautioned for that matter, but it seems he was prosecuted and pled guilty to the offence of common assault at the Magistrates Court, receiving a community order. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious and allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register would undermine confidence in it, so determined the Appellant must be removed. 3. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar's decision. Appeal to the Tribunal 4. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal, dated 21 st November 2024, indicates that there was a familial argument between him and his wife over a childcare related issue. The Appellant describes finding it difficult to control his anger and so tried to get some space. His wife wished to continue the "discussion" and would not go away, and "in a moment of weakness and overwhelming emotion, I lost control and struck my wife." He indicated he was profoundly remorseful for the incident and has taken time to repair and rebuild and rebuild his relationship with his wife. He asserts he is not a violent man. He avers that he is a caring man, supportive of others and a good ADI. He asserts this one isolated incident does not render him unfit. 5. He provided details of Transport for London's approach to his Private Hire Licence, after they heard of the same matter, which was to suspend his licence for a month. 6. He provided a body of positive character references and/or reviews of his ADI services. 7. The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the Registrar considered the Appellant's conviction and, it being such a serious matter, came to the view that the Appellant could no longer be viewed as being fit and proper and so had to be removed from the Register. Mode of Determination 8. The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system. 9. The Appellant attended and was represented by Md Tariq Bin Aziz, of Counsel. 10. The Respondent was represented by Darren Russell of the DVSA Appeals team. 11. The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 61 pages. Evidence 12. Mr Russell said the Respondent's position was as per the Response. 13. Mr Aziz on behalf of the Appellant submitted that whilst the Appellant made an innocent mistake in declaring the matter initially as a caution, he did clarify matters subsequently. He argues that the Appellant is remorseful for this one off incident, and the statements provided show that the Appellant is a fit and proper person to be on the Register. It was averred that the Appellant is a honest individual. 14. He argues that the Appellant's community standing, reconciliation of his relationship and his general position is such that he should be allowed to continue. It would be unjust to declare him unfit. 15. The Appellant said that his wife was "blaming on him," he asked for time and space, but she would not give it to him. He described that he lost control, as she wouldn't leave him alone, and he, in the heat of the moment, he picked up a shoe horn and hit her with it. He said he was deeply upset about it and promised it will never happen again. The blow caused reddening to the skin. 16. He said he had tried to turn the incident into a positive position of something to learn from. He stressed that he had come to terms with what happened and reconciled with his wife. He said the position with his wife "was fixed." 17. He said he had learnt to control his emotions and to take different steps to ensure that this incident never happens again. 18. A letter from the Probation service was read out that indicates that the Appellant has fully complied with his interventions put in place by the Magistrates Court; it also states that he continues to desist in offending behaviours. It indicates he has undertaken the Building Better Relationships programme. 19. He stressed his wife has forgiven him, after he personally apologised for his actions. The Law 20. 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 1988 [1] . 21. 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. 22. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 [2] , 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. 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". 23. 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 reasons [3] 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 24. The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it. 25. The Appellant has been convicted of a serious offence, where he accepted he had lost control. He asserts at different times within the papers supplied that the assault was accidental, in a way that seemed to the Tribunal to try and minimise the severity of the action, but also showed a lack of awareness of the behaviour. The Tribunal accepted on the materials before it that the Appellant had lost control and used violence to another over a trivial issue. Worse still he did so to someone who he claims to care for and love. The Tribunal was particularly concerned that if the Appellant could act this way with a family member, how might he behave towards a stranger. 26. There was considerable positive character materials, painting the Appellant in a positive light. His skills as discussed within the reviews were noteworthy, with individuals praising his instructor style and ability. The Tribunal was careful to balance this against the offence. 27. The Tribunal considered that at times being an ADI can be frustrating, challenging and more. Some students through personality, skill levels and/or other factors will test an ADI considerably. On the evidence of the assault here, there is a real possibility that the Appellant may lose control and act at least unprofessionally, if not worse. Such a risk is simply too great for the Registrar to contemplate. 28. Accordingly, the Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant from the Register. He must ensure that the public has faith that only those that have shown themselves to be fit and proper can be on the Register. The Appellant's behaviour, his failure to correctly report matters to the Registrar, his attempts to minimise matters and more are such that the Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant. The Registrar's decision was in the Tribunal's view absolutely right. 29. The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. (Signed) HHJ David Dixon David Rawsthorn Martin Smith DATE: 18 th June 2025 [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/V/crossheading/registration [2] [2010] EWCA Civ 808 [3] See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 . Approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 paragraph 45 . BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII