Mark Jervis v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 8 April 2025 to refuse to re-enter the Appellant’s name on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Register”) on the grounds that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”).

2. The Registrar reached this decision because the Appellant had accepted two fixed penalties for exceeding the speed limit on a motorway on the 22 June 2023 and the 15 October 2024, for which they received a total of 6 penalty points.

3. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Appellant chose not to appear and to rely on their written submissions instead. The Appeal

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 9 April 2025 in summary sets out : a. The Appellant has been involved with the driver training and examining industry for over 20 years both as an ADI previously and more recently as part of the DVSA ADI enforcement team. The Appellant is no longer a part of the DVSA ADI enforcement team and so has sought to return to being an ADI and hence has sought to have his name entered on the Register. b. The Appellant recognises that the fixed penalties are something they are ashamed and embarrassed about. c. Both incidents were just over 10% above the relevant limit, but the Appellant recognises that this is still below the standard required even though the driving was not careless or high risk. d. Given the Appellant’s record and background they are confused why they are not a fit and proper person. e. Up until 2023 the Appellant had a perfect driver record with no fines or points and in their last quarterly review they were assessed as exceeding in their role as an ADI examiner.

5. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 29 August 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar in summary says: a. Having carefully considered the representations made by the Appellant it remains the case that the fact that their driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points for two offences of excess speed cannot be ignored. Further, the offences were committed whilst they were a DVSA ADI qualified driving examiner. b. The Appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points having accepted two fixed penalty notices for exceeding the speed limit on a motorway. The conditions for entry onto the register extend beyond instructional ability and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. 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 which should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety. The Appellant is not believed to have displayed the required level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that is expected from an ADI. c. Speeding offences are serious road safety offences and give rise to significant numbers of casualties and accidents. d. Registration represents official approval, it would be inappropriate to condone motoring offences of this nature as it would effectively sanction such behaviour if transgressors are allowed entry on to the register to teach others. e. It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as such, who have scrupulously observed the law for this recent relevant conviction to be ignored. The Law

6. 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 – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”).

7. 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).

8. The Registrar can refuse to enter a person’s name on the Register if they are not a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register ( section 125(2) (e) of the Act ). The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. 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.

9. 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 ). The Evidence

10. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 24 numbered pages. This includes evidence of the original submissions provided to the Registrar by the Appellant as well as all the material submitted by the Appellant in support of the appeal. We heard submissions from the Registrar. The Relevant Facts

11. The Appellant accepted two fixed penalties for exceeding the speed limit on a motorway on the 22 June 2023 and the 15 October 2024, for which they received a total of 6 penalty points. Submissions

12. The representative of the Registrar in summary set out the following points: a. The Registrar was concerned that the Appellant did not meet the fit and proper Person criteria for the reasons set out in the statement of case and which they continued to rely upon. b. The Appellant has a total of 6 penalty points on their driving licence relating to two separate incidents spread between 2023 and 2024. Whilst the Appellant has made representations as regards these speeding incidents those representations do not mitigate nor excuse the fact that the speed limit was broken. c. The Appellant is someone who has previously held the role of ADI, and who following that had for a number of years held a role in the ADI Enforcement team supervising ADI compliance. He therefore is even more aware than most ADIs of the necessity for ADIs to have the skills and commitment to ensure their driving remains within the bounds of the law at all times. d. The standards and concern for road safety of a ADI are required to be higher than those expected of a normal motorist, and so it is submitted that the decision to not enter the Appellant on to the Register is correct. Conclusions

1. The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it. Including both the written submissions by the Appellant concerning their long and impressive driving record and experience prior to the speeding offences that are at the centre of this appeal. As well as the submissions of the Registrar as regards the harm caused by excessive speed and why such incidents damage the credibility and purpose of the Register.

13. 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. Which this Appellant will have been well aware of whilst applying to become an ADI and from his previous experience of being an ADI.

14. ADIs are rightly held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs will act professionally, reliably, and with integrity. ADIs must adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. This Appellant knows this expectation and standard better than most, having until recently been one of the enforcement team for the DVSA.

15. The Registrar has a duty to ensure that only those of appropriate standing are allowed entry on to the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities to not only know the rules but to scrupulously follow them as well.

16. The Registrar’s decision does not mean that the Appellant will never be considered to be a fit and proper person to become an ADI.

17. Speeding is a very serious driving offence which often will justify removal from the Register (especially where there are multiple incidents). Such conduct can and frequently does cause serious accidents. It endangers the lives of other road users, pedestrians and the driver themselves, or risks causing serious injury.

18. While the Appellant has offered explanations and expressed regret, we do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances in what was presented.

19. We therefore find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal. Signed Judge T Barrett Date: 11/10/25