Karen Lee Burnette v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction to the Appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 27 May 2025 that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register") on the grounds that under Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”) the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the Register (“the Decision”).

2. The basis for the Decision was that the Appellant had received: a. A fixed penalty on 20 December 2022 for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road resulting in 3 penalty points. b. A fixed penalty for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road on 6 October 2024 resulting in 3 penalty points.

3. On 4 May 2025, the Appellant appealed against the Decision.

4. The appeal was heard by video (CVP). The parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

5. The Tribunal’s decision is unanimous. The Appeal

6. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 4 May 2025 explains that: a. She had notified the Registrar of the second fixed penalty offence within 9 rather than 7 days because she had needed photographic evidence to clarify the reasons as to why she had committed the offence. b. She shows integrity, honest and reliability which makes her a fit and proper person. c. She is remorseful, and concerned at the prospect of losing her career, home and only source of income, at the age of 65. d. She has held her driving licence for 48 years with no convictions prior to 2022. e. By way of outcome, she seeks to remain on the Register.

7. The Registrar's Statement of Case dated 8 October 2025 resists the appeal. In summary, the Registrar submits that: a. The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in December 2003 and in the normal course of events, her certificate of registration will expire on 31 December 2027. b. On 24 April 2025, the Registrar was advised by the DVLA The Registrar is unable to provide a copy of the notification to him. that the Appellant had been convicted of exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road on 14 April 2025, resulting in her driving licence being endorsed with 3 penalty points. c. The Registrar was already aware of the Appellant’s previous offence of exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road on 20 December 2022, for which she had accepted a fixed penalty notice. On 13 March 2023, the Appellant had been advised of her obligation to show due regard for the motoring laws, her responsibility to notify the Registrar of any fixed penalty notice or conviction within 7 days, and that if it became necessary in the future to consider whether she was a fit and proper person, her record as a whole would be taken into account. d. The Appellant had failed to notify the Registrar of either offence within 7 days which is a clear breach of the declaration she made on her application to extend her period of registration submitted on 3 December 2023 The Registrar is unable to provide a copy of the application but provides a copy of the standard declaration made. . In light of the undeclared conviction and fixed penalty notice offence, the Registrar considered that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have her name retained in the Register. e. On 26 April 2025, the Appellant made representations to the Registrar to the effect that the offences had not been committed with any disregard for the law: i. the first was committed in error when the Appellant was driving downhill leaving a 50-mph zone and entering a 30-mph zone; she was concerned because she was a few minutes late for her next pupil and only corrected her speed too late. ii. The second resulted from an unexpected diversion, prompting an immediate left turn onto a road where the speed signage was obscured by a large sign and a bush. f. The Registrar considered the Appellant’s explanations poor. He would expect an experienced ADI to have the knowledge and skills to deal with the situation described, and to have driven defensively, if unaware of the speed limit. The Appellant’s licence is now endorsed with 6 points for the same offence, which does not support safe driving and an understanding of the risks of excess speed. g. The Registrar’s reasons for the Decision are as follows: i. The Appellant’s licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points. The conditions for entry onto the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. As such, account is taken of a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. Anyone who is an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. In committing these offences, the Appellant has not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety which the Registrar would expect to see from a professional ADI. ii. The Government increased the payment levels for serious road safety offences such as speeding, the requirement to control a vehicle (including mobile phone use), passing red lights, pedestrian crossings and wearing a seatbelt. These offences contribute to a significant number of casualties. For example, in 2020 excessive speed contributed to 2020 deaths, 1,300 serious injuries and 1,386 minor accidents, using a mobile phone contributed to 17 deaths, 92 serious injuries and 97 minor accidents; and careless driving, reckless, or in a hurry contributed to 193 deaths, 2,824 serious injuries and 3,060 minor accidents. iii. As an officer of the Secretary of State charged with compiling and maintaining the Register on his behalf, the Registrar does not consider that he can condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed to remain on an official register that allows them to teach others. iv. It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, for the Registrar to ignore the Appellant’s undeclared offences. The hearing

8. The Registrar submitted, in summary, as follows: on 25 April 2025, the DVLA had informed the Registrar of the Appellant’s fixed penalty offence of 6 October 2024; the Registrar was already aware of the Appellant’s fixed penalty offence of 20 December 2022; the Registrar has considered the Appellant’s representations but cannot ignore the fact that the Appellant failed to notify the Registrar within 7 days of either offence, and that the Appellant’s licence is endorsed with 6 points for 2 speeding offences; for an ADI to have their licence endorsed with 6 points falls below the standards expected of an ADI which are higher than those expected of an ordinary motorist.

9. The Registrar accepted that the 3 penalty points in relation to the first offence of 20 December 2022 would expire on 20 December 2025 for the purposes of totting up, that is to say, just one month from now, but nevertheless stands by the Decision made on the basis of the information and evidence available at the time the Decision was made.

10. The Appellant attended the hearing. Her representative submitted in relation to the second offence, in summary, the following: the A-road from which the Appellant had suddenly been diverted was a road with which the Appellant was only occasionally familiar; the road onto which she was diverted and on which the offence was committed was not a road she had ever used before; the speed limit on the A-road was 40 mph; the offence on the road onto which the Appellant was diverted was committed at 37 mph in a 30 mph zone; the diversion was occasioned by one-day traffic works, with not much notice in the local area; when diverted, the Appellant had been looking to manage her risk, and was looking for speed signs, of which there was a lack of forward notice; the Appellant was not able to see a speed sign immediately; there was a temporary speed camera in place; the Appellant’s satellite navigation did not record the speed limit; it was only further down the road that the Appellant identified a speed limit sign; a high number of other motorists have been convicted of the same offence on that road in the same circumstances.

11. Upon revisiting the site of the offence, the Appellant identified that almost immediately after the diversion onto the road where the offence occurred, there was a 30-mph speed sign, but it was obscured first by a large, square road sign, and then by a hedge. The Appellant showed us photographs of both obscuring items. She explained to us how matters had appeared to her as she turned onto the diverted route, and the lack of clarity of speed signage.

12. The photograph of the large, square road sign was insufficiently clear for the Tribunal to identify what it depicted. The Appellant accepted that it might indicate a weight limit sign but that that, of itself, does not indicate a 30-mph speed limit as opposed to a 40-mph speed limit.

13. When asked by the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed she has attended a speed awareness course but could not recall precisely when: “ a good few years ago.”

14. The Tribunal identified a painted road sign on the surface of the road parallel to the large, square sign. Neither the Tribunal, the Appellant nor the Registrar could identify from the photograph what it depicted. The law

15. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a “fit” and “proper” person to have their name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Act . The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

16. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit ( section 131(3) ). The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar's decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions (in accordance with R. (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 ).

17. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 , the Court of Appeal described the "fit and proper person" condition as follows: ".. 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…It seems to me that 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. " (paragraph 30). The evidence

18. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 32 pages, including two photographs relating to the speed signage relevant to the second offence. The relevant facts

19. We find the following facts.

20. On 20 December 2022, the Appellant received a fixed penalty notice for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road. The Appellant failed to notify the Registrar of this fact within 7 days, as she should have done. That penalty is shortly to expire.

21. On 14 April 2025, the Appellant received a second fixed penalty for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road on 6 October 2024. She was driving at 37 mph in a 30-mph zone, on a road with which she was unfamiliar, after a sudden diversion. We accept that the road traffic circumstances, and, specifically, the speed signage on the road onto which the Appellant was diverted, were as she describes. The Appellant failed to notify the Registrar of this offence within 7 days, despite having been reminded on 13 March 2023 of her obligation to report any such offence. We accept that the Appellant was late in notifying the Registrar because she was working full time and wished first to obtain photographic evidence of the road signage. Conclusions

22. If an ADI's name is allowed to be entered in the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public's confidence in the Register.

23. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of behaviour, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. Teaching people of all ages to drive safely, carefully, and competently is a professional vocation requiring a significant degree of responsibility. Such a demanding task should only be entrusted to those with high personal and professional standards and who themselves have demonstrated a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law.

24. The Appellant’s explanation for the first offence is not exculpatory: she herself has said that she was running late, the implication of that being that she was in a hurry. The fact that she was driving downhill is irrelevant. We have received no explanation as to why the Appellant did not declare the first offence to the Registrar.

25. We are satisfied that the Appellant’s driving at the time of the second offence was not of such a standard as to suggest that she is not a fit and proper person. There are mitigating circumstances: one day traffic works with limited notice in the local area and obscured speed signage. We accept the Appellant’s evidence that she was looking to identify the speed limit on the road in question but failed to do so.

26. We have noted and accept the Appellant’s reassurance, volunteered to us at the hearing that she is aware of her obligations and the requirements of the ADI Code of Practice.

27. We bear in mind that the Appellant has not had any convictions prior to 2022.

28. We have noted the positive testimonials relating to the Appellant’s character and instruction which appear in the hearing bundle.

29. We bear in mind that the first fixed penalty offence is due to expire shortly.

30. Taking all these matters into account, we do not consider that the Registrar has established that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to be an ADI. We conclude that the Decision was incorrect.

31. We allow the appeal.