Oyetola Adebayo Fakoya v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background:

1. This appeal arises from the Registrar’s removal decision following the Appellant’s conviction for an offence arising from holding a mobile phone while driving. The Appellant pleaded guilty and received 6 penalty points and a £200 fine.

2. In his written statement, the Appellant explained that the incident occurred shortly after purchasing a new vehicle. He believed his phone had connected to the car’s Bluetooth; when the phone rang while he was stationary at a traffic light, he instinctively picked it up before immediately realising this was wrong. He did not interact with the device or engage in any interactive communication. He later pled guilty on advice that holding the device constituted “use”. He expressed remorse and accepted responsibility.

3. The Appellant also accepted that he failed to notify the Registrar of the conviction promptly and apologised for that omission.

4. The Appellant has been an ADI for more than a decade, with an otherwise clean professional record and a positive reputation for safe driving instruction. Chronology:

5. Registrar’s decision letter (bundle index item). Notice of Appeal lodged by the Appellant (bundle index item). Registrar’s Response (bundle index item). Penalty points record (D1) and declaration (D2) (bundle index items). Invitation to make representations (D3) and Appellant’s representations (D4). Further Appellant information including his explanation and apology (bundle pp. 24–26). Panel deliberation notes were recorded following the hearing. (The bundle index identifies these documents and their sequence; the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of their contents as discussed below.) The Issues:

6. The appeal turns on three core questions: a) Fitness and propriety – whether, in light of the conviction and surrounding circumstances, the Appellant remains a fit and proper person to be included on the Register. b) Proportionality – whether the Registrar’s removal decision was proportionate in the circumstances of this case. c) Exceptionality – whether the impact and features of this case are exceptional, such that continued registration is the appropriate outcome.

7. The Tribunal considered the full appeal bundle (including the Registrar’s decision and response) and the Appellant’s written and oral submissions.

8. The Tribunal also took into account the Panel’s deliberation notes, which recorded, among other things, that the Appellant accepted responsibility, understood the seriousness of using a phone while driving, conducted himself fairly and honestly at the hearing, and had a good record as an ADI. The notes further observed the disproportionate impact removal would have on his livelihood of the last ten years.

9. The Appellant’s written submissions detailed the context of the incident (momentary, instinctive action; no interactive use; stationary at traffic lights), his otherwise unblemished record, and the gravity of consequences if removed, including the risk to an ongoing adoption process that depends upon financial stability and suitable accommodation, as well as mortgage obligations linked to his ADI income . Findings of Fact:

10. The Tribunal inquired of the Appellant why he had not reported the conviction to the Respondent within 7 days, and he explained he had simply overlooked the requirement to do so. The Respondent, through Mr Russell expressed the view that it would have been unlikely to make any difference to the impugned decision if the Appellant had done so.

11. The Tribunal finds that the offence, though meeting the legal definition (as the Appellant accepted by pleading guilty), was the product of a momentary and instinctive reaction while the vehicle was stationary, with no interactive communication and no deliberate misuse of the device. The explanation has been consistent and credible.

12. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has a longstanding, clean record as an ADI and has demonstrated genuine remorse and insight into the seriousness of the offence.

13. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant is the primary breadwinner and that removal would likely result in immediate loss of income with no ready alternative, jeopardising a recent mortgage and undermining the financial stability required for an adoption in its final stages.

14. The Tribunal finds that the combination of these impacts extends beyond the usual consequences that follow removal from the Register and would carry significant repercussions for innocent third parties, notably the child the Appellant and his wife hope to adopt. Analysis: A. Fitness and Propriety

15. Fitness and propriety require a holistic assessment, taking into account the offence, the Appellant’s insight and conduct, and his professional history. The Tribunal unanimously accept that the Appellant made a serious error but has: (i) admitted fault, (ii) shown remorse and insight, and (iii) maintained an otherwise exemplary professional record over more than a decade. These factors weigh in favour of his continued registration. B. Proportionality

16. The Registrar’s role includes upholding public confidence in road safety. However, proportionality requires the decision to be no more onerous than necessary to achieve that aim. Here, the facts show: the conduct was brief and non-deliberate, there was no interactive use, and the Appellant’s record is unblemished. In light of those factors, the Tribunal considers that removal—the most severe regulatory outcome—would be disproportionate. C. Exceptionality

17. The Tribunal recognises that loss of income often follows removal and, by itself, is not necessarily exceptional. What distinguishes this case are compounding and time-critical factors: a) The Appellant and his wife are at a late stage of an adoption process that explicitly depends upon financial stability and suitable accommodation—both of which are tied to the Appellant’s ADI earnings and recently assessed housing arrangements. Sudden deregistration would likely derail that process. b) The Appellant is the sole or primary breadwinner; the immediate loss of his livelihood as an ADI of ten years would risk mortgage default and consequent instability, directly impacting the adoption feasibility and a prospective child’s welfare.

18. The Tribunal unanimously consider these consequences to be exceptional because they extend beyond the ordinary financial and reputational impacts of removal. They involve significant, foreseeable third-party detriment—namely, the welfare of a child likely to be adversely affected if the adoption collapses—combined with the timing (final stages of assessment) and the inseparability of the Appellant’s income from his ADI registration.

19. Balanced against the public interest in road safety and regulatory standards, the isolated, instinctive, and non-interactive nature of the incident, coupled with the Appellant’s remorse, good character, and sustained professional record, persuades the Tribunal that continued registration is the proportionate response and that this is, in the round, an exceptional case. Conclusion:

20. Taking all matters together—especially the exceptional hardship to the Appellant’s family and the significant risk to an imminent adoption process, the non-deliberate nature of the conduct, and the Appellant’s otherwise exemplary record—the Tribunal find that the Appellant remains fit and proper and that removal would be disproportionate. The appeal is therefore allowed, and the Appellant is to remain on the Register.

21. The Tribunal express thanks to the Appellant and Mr Russell on behalf of the Respondent for the significant assistance, and exemplary manner in which they conducted this appeal. Judge Brian Kennedy KC 11 March 2026.