Mohammed Ayub 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 5 June 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 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 this: on 11 April 2025, the Appellant was convicted for sexual assault against a pupil for which he was sentenced on 29 May 2025 as follows: a. A 26-week prison sentence for an offence of sexual assault, suspended for 2 years. b. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order of 5 years during which he is prohibited from: i. Unsupervised access during his employment as a driving instructor with any female under the age of 18 years. ii. Being alone in any vehicle with a female under 18 years of age who is not a member of his immediate family. c. Rehabilitation Activity Requirement.

3. On 11 June 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 11 June 2025 explains that he: a. has been a driving instructor since 1985 and has never had any complaints until this current matter. b. will be able to provide character references and further information to demonstrate that he continues to be a fit and proper person. c. would be prepared to have conditions applied to his registration. d. wished to make oral representations to the Tribunal. e. has been suspended from acting as an ADI since 4 July 2025 and believes that that suspension period is a sufficient warning.

7. By way of outcome, the Appellant seeks reinstatement of his registration with conditions, if those are thought necessary.

8. The Registrar's Statement of Case dated 21 October 2025 resists the appeal. In summary, the Registrar submits that: a. On 21 June 2024, the Registrar was advised by the police that the Appellant had been charged for sexual assault by touching over clothing “x2” (which we take to mean assault on two occasions). b. On 21 June 2024, the Registrar notified the Appellant that the Registrar was considering removing the Appellant’s name from the Register on the grounds that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in it. The Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations to the Registrar within 28 days, which the Registrar would take into consideration before reaching a decision. The Appellant was also notified that his registration had been suspended with immediate effect. c. On 25 June 2024, the Registrar received representations from solicitors instructed by the Appellant which included the following: i. Nine customer reviews. ii. The allegations against the Appellant were vehemently denied. The Appellant would be pleading not guilty. iii. While the charges related to conduct of a sexual nature, they were of “the lowest level”. iv. The Appellant had been approached by a family member of the complainant, asking for money to drop the case, which highlighted a motive for making disingenuous and false allegations. It was crucial to note that these were merely allegations at this stage, and the presumption of innocence should be maintained until proven otherwise in court once the Appellant had had the opportunity to put his side of the case. v. Since being placed on bail on 5 March 2024, the Appellant had complied fully with the bail conditions imposed, demonstrating his commitment to abide by legal requirements and ensuring the safety and comfort of his pupils. This suggested that the authorities did not consider the Appellant to be a danger to the public, reinforcing his position that he remained a fit and proper person. vi. Further statements were made concerning the damage to the Appellant’s professional reputation of 37 years and the severe repercussions on his professional and personal life. vii. The Appellant requested that the suspension be lifted allowing him to continue to work. d. On 2 July 2024, the Registrar agreed to lift the suspension and defer his decision to remove until the outcome of the prosecution of the Appellant. e. In April 2025, the Appellant confirmed to the Registrar that: one of the charges was dismissed, and he was found guilty under the second charge; the Appellant was intending to appeal; the magistrate had indicated that the Appellant would be limited to teaching males only, and females in the presence of an adult in the car . f. In light of that confirmation, the Registrar decided that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register. On 23 April 2025, the Registrar confirmed to the Appellant that he was considering removing the Appellant's name from the Register on the ground that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in it. The Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations within 28 days, which the Registrar would take into consideration before reaching a decision. The Appellant was also notified that his registration had been suspended with immediate effect. g. On 8 May 2025, solicitors for the Appellant asked the Registrar for further time to respond to the Appellant’s letter of 23 April 2025 so as to accommodate the Appellant’s sentencing hearing which was scheduled for 29 May 2025. The Registrar agreed to extend time to 5 June 2025. h. On 2 June 2025, the Local Authority Designated Officer contacted the Registrar stating that the police had advised them of the outcome of the sentencing hearing. i. The Registrar heard nothing further from the Appellant or his solicitors. Accordingly, on the basis of the fact that the Appellant had been convicted of a sexual assault against a pupil, the Registrar considered that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register. The Registrar notified the Appellant of that decision by letter dated 5 June 2025 . j. On 12 June 2025, the police advised the Registrar of the Appellant’s sentence. k. On 20 June 2025, the police advised the Registrar that the Appellant had attended a DVSA Driving Test Centre where he had presented a pupil for their driving test. On the same day, the Registrar informed the Appellant that he was aware of that fact. The Appellant’s offender manager had reinforced the fact that the Appellant was suspended from providing driving tuition. l. The Registrar’s reasons for the Decision are as follows: i. The Appellant has been convicted of sexual assault against a former pupil. The conditions for entry onto the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. 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. The Registrar would therefore be failing in his public duty if he allowed a person who had been convicted of this offence to have his name retained in the Register. ii. Registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is "Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor". Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct. In view of this, the Registrar is concerned that the good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public's confidence undermined if it were generally known that the Registrar had allowed the Appellant's name to be retained in the Register. iii. 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 previously undeclared conviction. The hearing

9. The Registrar submitted, in summary, that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. The Registrar described the Appellant’s conviction and sentence for a sexual offence. The Registrar has considered the Appellant’s representations but cannot ignore the fact that the Appellant has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against a pupil, and he bears in mind that driving instruction is undertaken “one to one”, often teaching young, inexperienced and vulnerable individuals. The Registrar does not consider that the Appellant meets the required standards of an ADI and no longer considers him to be a fit and proper person.

10. The Appellant submitted, in summary: that he did not appeal against his conviction; he has apologised to the victim and her family; he is currently on probation and adhering to its terms; he has ceased to teach female pupils; he has been a driving instructor for 42 years with no previous issue; he is 65 years old with no other form of income; his wife is training to become an ADI; he asks to be permitted to teach male pupils only; when he presented a pupil for their driving test when he was under suspension, that is because he had misunderstood what suspension meant, thinking that it was of a similar effect to the conditions on which the police permitted him to continue to teach after he was charged with sexual assault, namely that he may teach males only; his daughter runs a business which introduces pupil candidates to driving instructors, and where he has been approached for instruction, he has passed the candidate to her; he wishes to be permitted to teach male pupils only. The law

11. 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 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.

12. 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 ).

13. 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

14. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 38 pages. The relevant facts

15. We find the following facts.

16. The Appellant has been convicted of a serious sexual offence, sufficiently serious to merit a suspended prison sentence. He is subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 5 years.

17. There has been no appeal, or successful appeal, by the Appellant against that conviction of which we are aware.

18. The Appellant failed to inform the Registrar of his conviction.

19. The Appellant continued to provide driving instruction while suspended. Conclusions

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register.

23. A person convicted of an offence of a sexual nature is not, in our view, a person of appropriate standing to be an ADI.

24. In our view, the Appellant’s conviction of an offence of a sexual nature against a pupil is a particularly serious matter and tells strongly against the Appellant being a person of appropriate standing.

25. We do not consider that the application of any conditions to the Appellant’s registration by reference to the gender of his pupils is, in any way, effective to address the issue of whether he is rightly to be regarded as a fit and proper person.

26. We do not accept that the Appellant can reasonably have misunderstood the effect of the Registrar’s notification to him of his suspension. The wording of the notification is clear.

27. The Appellant says that driving instruction is his only form of income. That may be the case. That does not weigh in our consideration of whether he is a fit and proper person. We note that his wife is intending shortly to become an ADI and will, presumably, derive an income from driving instruction.

28. We find that the Appellant does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Decision was correct.

29. We dismiss the appeal.