Bethan Hill 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 her name entered in the Register (“the Decision”).

2. The basis for the Decision was because the Appellant had received: a. A fixed penalty on 12 January 2025 for exceeding the speed limit on a motorway, resulting in 3 penalty points. b. A fixed penalty on 19 March 2025 for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road resulting in 3 penalty points.

3. On 17 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. The Appellant attended and was represented by Counsel at the hearing.

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

6. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 17 June 2025 explains, in summary, that: a. The two fixed penalties referred to above were insufficient to justify the Registrar’s finding that she is not a fit and proper person. b. It is not appropriate in this case to approach the question of fitness on a totting up basis. c. There is a relevant context to the offences: in relation to the first offence, there are mitigating circumstances; in relation to the second, the Registrar should have considered the broader context of the Appellant’s mental state at the time of the offence. d. The fixed penalty notices are irrelevant to the Appellant’s fitness as an ADI, and the weight they are afforded should be reduced. e. A determination of fitness should go beyond consideration of two isolated instances of excess speed. f. There is a substantial body of positive evidence relating to the Appellant’s character. g. By way of outcome, the Appellant seeks the setting aside of the Decision and a substituted decision by the Tribunal that the Appellant is a fit and proper person.

7. The Registrar's Statement of Case dated 15 October 2025 resists the appeal. In summary, the Registrar explains that: a. The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in July 2019 and in the normal course of events, her certificate of registration will expire on 30 July 2027. b. On 24 April 2025, the Appellant had informed the Registrar that: i. she had recently been issued with “2 x 3” points on her driving licence, for which she accepted full responsibility. ii. She is a fit and proper person to remain on the Register. iii. Her entire life depends upon her ADI job; it is her only source of income. The points on her licence do not represent her ability as an instructor. c. In light of the fixed penalty offences, the Registrar considered the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have her name retained in the Register. d. On 25 April 2025, the Registrar informed the Appellant that he was considering removing her name from the Register. He invited her representations. e. On 25 April 2025, the Appellant made the following representations to the Registrar: i. The Appellant accepted fulL responsibility for the fines and penalty points, felt totally ashamed, and was sorry for allowing herself to get into this situation. ii. Her home and entire life depend upon her ADI job, and it is her only source of income. iii. In relation to the first offence: she was travelling at 2 a.m. on an empty smart motorway with a very unwell friend in her car. She did not see that the speed limit had suddenly reduced from 70-mph to 50-mph. The overhead speed limit sign was not visible due to mist/fog and she “did not clock the 50 sign above [her]” soon enough. Her concentration was with her friend and she had assumed the speed limit was still 70 mph. The speed limit remained at 50 mph for a few minutes and then increased to 70 mph. She should have pulled over to check her friend rather than prioritising getting him home with her attention span wavering. She was unusually distracted at this moment. iv. In relation to the second offence: she had just overtaken a very dangerous driver in the left lane of a dual carriageway but did not reduce her speed soon enough within 40 mph as she got closer to the approaching toll area. The speeding was momentary and unavoidable due to the hazard in the left lane and she avoided a collision. She has not contested the penalty. She has a personal circumstance and reason as to why she was not as aware as usual: a traumatic event she had been dealing with in September 2024. She provided information relating to her mother’s ill health. f. The Registrar had considered the Appellant’s heartfelt representations and while he was empathetic to her personal circumstances, the Appellant admitted she was at fault for both offences, instances the Registrar would expect a professional ADI to deal with. The first offence should have been a reminder to the Appellant to consider the impact 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 Appellant having accepted two fixed penalty notice offences for exceeding speed limit on a motorway and exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road. 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 2,020 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 offences. The hearing

8. At the hearing, the Registrar submitted that: a. He had decided to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register on the basis that she had ceased to be a fit and proper person. b. While he had considered the Appellant’s heartfelt representations and that the Appellant had accepted full responsibility for her actions, he could not ignore the fact that the Appellant had earned 3 penalty points on two occasions within 3 months. c. 6 penalty points indicated that the Appellant had fallen below the expected standards of an ADI. d. The Decision was correct.

9. At the hearing, Counsel for the Appellant submitted, in summary, as follows: a. The Tribunal must consider the importance of the circumstances of the offences and the extent to which there is any causal link between those and the Appellant’s falling below the fit and proper standard. b. This is not a case where the relevant behaviour occurred while the Appellant was driving in her role as ADI, rather in her personal capacity. c. The first offence is not a breach of a motorway speed limit but a specific limit in place on that occasion. The Appellant was suffering additional stress at the time, not only that of the immediate circumstances involving her friend. d. The second offence arose as a result of the need to avoid another driver’s dangerous driving, that is to say from matters outside her control, and, again, the Appellant was suffering external stresses. e. Consideration of the convictions indicates that it would not be proper to apply the fit and proper rule in this case. f. The evidence demonstrates the Appellant’s “strong pass” upon qualifying as an ADI, her character and ability, her ability to engage in reflective practice, the positive manner in which she approaches her profession, her strength of feeling and her acknowledgment of the importance of maintaining proper standards. g. The evidence does not show any propensity to speeding, any impact on those instructed by the Appellant, any risk to any other road user, or that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person. h. The Tribunal must first consider the matters complained of and whether they are sufficient to indicate that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person; if they are, the Tribunal must consider the wider evidence which gives valuable context and shows that the Appellant is, in fact, a fit and proper person whose name ought actively to be maintained on the Register, rather than removed, with the impact on her which would flow from that. i. In all the circumstances, the Appellant is a fit and proper person when the context of why the offences took place is considered, and given the wider body of evidence.

10. The Tribunal asked, and the Appellant answered, a number of questions at the hearing, which we address in more detail below. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant’s responses to the Tribunal’s questions demonstrated her insight and learning. 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 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.

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 50 pages including a statement from the Appellant, Counsel’s skeleton arguments, and a further statement from the Appellant filed after the hearing in response to specific direction from the Tribunal.

15. The Appellant's first statement addressed the first offence as follows: the passenger in her car was unwell, visibly agitated and nauseous due to a likely virus and complications from OCD. He had just left a highly overstimulating environment and needed to get home to take his medication. The Appellant was trying to support and reassure him during the journey, and her attention was partially on his condition.

16. In support of the Appellant’s account of the circumstances of the first offence, the Appellant also filed a witness statement from the passenger. He said that he is diagnosed with OCD for which he takes medication which sometimes causes side effects. During the journey, he began to feel extremely unwell. He subsequently began suffering with a viral infection. He needed to access his medication. The Appellant was checking on him throughout the journey.

17. The Appellant’s statement addressed the second offence as follows: she was overtaking a driver in the left lane who was behaving erratically and, in her judgment, posing a hazard to other road users. She made the decision to pass the driver safely and maintain control of the situation.

18. The Appellant further explained that she has suffered with severe anxiety since being told she would be removed from the Register; she will lose her vehicle and her home, and be unable to transport her ill mother, who needs the Appellant’s assistance. She is concerned about letting her students down. Her ADI job is her source of income, and she has no other qualifications or work experience.

19. The Appellant filed a witness statement from her mother addressing her mother’s health issues, the support provided to her by the Appellant, which includes driving her, and some medical evidence relating to her mother’s health condition.

20. At the hearing, the Tribunal asked the Appellant why, in relation to the first offence, the Appellant had not pulled over to look after her passenger. The Appellant explained that in the moment, she had wanted to get home; her passenger was tired and distraught and wanted to get home but, in hindsight, the Appellant accepted she should have taken 10-15 minutes to pull over and have been more mindful. She regrets the fact that she did not. When asked whether her passenger was sufficiently unwell for the Appellant to call emergency services, the Appellant confirmed that she had not called the emergency services.

21. In relation to the second offence, the Appellant explained that she had increased her driving speed to avoid a dangerous driver and had not managed to slow down to within the required speed limit in time before being stopped by a traffic officer. The Appellant confirmed to the Tribunal that on that occasion, she was driving at 53 mph in a 30-mph zone.

22. The Tribunal asked the Appellant whether she had ever attended a speed awareness course, and, if so, when. The Appellant confirmed she had attended such a course in April 2025.

23. The Appellant explained to the Tribunal that she was: committed to maintaining a clean licence for the rest of her life; learning from the situation; more mindful of stresses outside her job; and apologetic.

24. In response to directions issued by the Tribunal shortly after the hearing, the Appellant explained that her attendance at the speed awareness course in April 2025 to which she had referred in the hearing, “related to a mobile speed camera” when she was travelling home on 3 December 2024 after a therapy session with a friend. On that occasion, the Appellant was travelling at 26 mph in a 20-mph zone, as she accelerated up a hill. The Appellant explained that she found the course extremely informative and believes ADIs should complete a refresher or similar on a yearly basis. The facts

25. We find the following facts: a. On 3 December 2024, the Appellant was driving at 26 mph in a 20-mph zone. b. On 12 January 2025 the Appellant received a fixed penalty notice for exceeding the speed limit on a motorway resulting in her driving licence being endorsed with 3 penalty points. The Appellant was driving at 73 mph in a 50-mph zone. c. On 15 January 2025, the Appellant was notified of her speeding infraction of 3 December 2024. d. On 19 March 2025 the Appellant received a fixed penalty notice for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road on date resulting in her driving licence being endorsed with 3 penalty points. The Appellant was driving at 53 mph in a 30-mph zone. e. On or around 17 April 2025, the Appellant attended a speed awareness course in relation to her speeding infraction of 3 December 2024.

26. In each case, the Appellant’s driving above the speed limits was avoidable. In the second case, the Appellant could have pulled over or off the motorway to assist her passenger. In the third case, even if the Appellant had accelerated to avoid a dangerous driver, it is the case that she had not reduced her speed sufficiently after avoiding that hazard. Conclusion

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. In our view, the fact of two speeding convictions in the space of three months in circumstances where speeding was avoidable, indicates that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to have her name maintained on the Register.

30. Moreover, the two instances of speeding resulting in two convictions followed hard on a previous incident of speeding in December 2024, making three speeding infractions in the space of four months. Given the sequence of infractions and penalties, the Appellant should have been even keenly alive to the need to avoid exceeding speed limits.

31. We consider, taking everything in the round, that the Appellant’s driving standards fell below those of a fit and proper person to have their named entered on the Register.

32. It is surprising to us that the Appellant did not disclose the December 2024 infraction to the Tribunal as part of what was presented by her at the hearing as a comprehensive account of her driving record and commitment to high standards of driving. The Tribunal only elicited the fact of the December 2024 infraction as a result of questioning the Appellant at the hearing and by directions issued after the hearing.

33. We have fully considered the Appellant’s submissions and evidence relating to the importance to her of maintaining her name on the Register, and her explanations of external factors which she says adversely impacted her driving on each occasion. However, in our view, those are not such as to mitigate the fact of the Appellant’s speeding on three occasions in four months.

34. By supplementary submission filed after the Appellant confirmed her first speeding infraction of 3 December 2024, the Registrar submits, “ in sustaining 3 separate speeding offences between December 2024 and March 2025, this is not a one-off offence and is a concerning pattern within the appellants driving behaviour. The appellant has failed to show due regard for the motoring laws and failed to show the level of commitment to road safety that is expected of an Approved Driving Instructor.” We agree.

35. We find on the balance of probabilities 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.

36. We dismiss the appeal.