David Horner v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background to the appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 10 September 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence on the ground that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to become an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). This is because the Appellant received a fixed penalty notice dated 17 December 2024 for exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road (SP30) resulting in 3 penalty points and a fixed penalty notice dated 20 June 2025 for exceeding speed limit on a motorway (SP50) resulting in 3 penalty points, resulting in the Appellant now having 6 penalty points on his licence.

2. The proceedings were held 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 Appeal

3. The Appellant lodged an appeal on form GRC1 dated 22 September 2025. The reasons for appeal quoted part of an email sent by the Appellant to the Registrar on 8 September 2025 containing his reasons why he considered that he should be allowed to continue as a driving instructor and why he was fit and proper; the full email was attached to the GRC1 form. In summary, he made the following points:

4. He is extremely embarrassed by finding himself in a position where he has been caught speeding through an oversight. a. He has reflected on factors affecting his driving and wider pressures in his life and actively taken steps to address and reduce the risks which he believes led to the circumstances of the offences. These have included reducing his overall workload, undertaking additional training, deciding to use full forward and rearward dashcams and avoiding travelling at times of night when variable speed limits might be in place. He also noted that recent developments in his personal circumstances had reduced the pressures on him financially. b. He explained that the second speeding offence occurred on a day when he was teaching in an unfamiliar area. He checked his phone after finishing teaching at 8.30pm and saw a WhatsApp message indicating that one of his parents had been taken ill and a later one indicating their condition had worsened, causing him significant concern. He immediately headed towards home. Upon entering the M1 southbound, he saw 50mph temporary speed limit signs which he obeyed, though others around him did not appear to be observing it and he felt unsafe driving at 50mph. He did not see any further signs about the speed limit and decided it was safer to drive to the speeds of the road, at which point he was flashed by a speed camera. He instantly regretted not being more vigilant and assuming the road was back to normal speed, but he was upset at the time and keen to get home as soon as possible. c. He worked as a driving instructor in New Zealand for more than 10 years. He takes his responsibilities as a driving instructor seriously. d. He is concerned about causing unnecessary stress to his pupils if he was not able to continue to teach them.

5. The Registrar’s Response dated 26 September 2025 and statement dated 11 February 2026 resist the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant’s driving licence is endorsed with 6 penalty points in relation to two offences and the Appellant has only provided details in relation one of the offences. An ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. The Registrar does not believe that the Appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that he would expect to see from a potential ADI.

6. The Appellant did not provide a Reply but has provided supplementary submissions. The Law

7. Grant of a trainee licence requires the applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” – see section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (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. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant ’ s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.

8. 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).

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 and submissions

10. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 99 numbered pages submitted by the Registrar. In addition, the Appellant submitted a supplemental bundle of 87 pages, including a skeleton argument, written submissions and supporting evidence.

11. We heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing in which he reiterated points made in his written submissions. He reflected on some of the cultural differences between the UK and New Zealand. When asked about his speeding offences, he provided further information about this, including the fact that he attended a speed awareness course shortly after returning to the UK, although his understanding was that this was not on the record in the same way penalty points would be. He spoke about the steps which he had taken to reduce his workload, restrict his speed and the different approaches which he has considered to prevent a reoccurrence, including personal development. When asked about initial non-disclosure of the second speeding offence, he emphasised that there had been no intent behind it, but that he had become confused with similar exercises in his other activities.

12. We also heard submissions from the Registrar at the hearing. He commented on the speed awareness course attended by the Appellant. The Registrar does sympathise with the challenges the Appellant was facing at the time of the offences, but considered that in committing the offences the Appellant had not demonstrated sufficient regard for the law or commitment to road safety. The relevant facts

13. The Appellant is not now and has never been on the Register, as he is currently going through the qualification process.

14. On 19 August 2025, the Registrar received an application for a further licence to give instruction (trainee licence) from the Appellant. A routine check of the DVLA database confirmed that the Appellant had accepted two fixed penalties, the first on the 17 December 2024 for exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public road, SP30 resulting in 3 penalty points and the second on the 20 June 2025 for exceeding the speed limit on a motorway, SP50 resulting in a further 3 penalty points.

15. The Registrar states that he was already aware of the first offence as the Appellant disclosed this when applying for his first trainee licence on the 13 February 2025.

16. By email dated 20 August 2025, the Registrar gave the Appellant written notice that he was considering refusing the application on the grounds that the Registrar could not be satisfied that the Appellant fulfilled the condition of being a” fit and proper person”. The Appellant was invited to make representations within 14 days.

17. By email dated 08 September 2025 including 7 attachments, the Appellant made representations. This provided further detail of the incidents and convictions concerned and explained why there had been an error in uploading details. The Appellant stated that he had now actively taken steps to address and reduce the risks and causal factors which led to his convictions and gave examples.

18. Having considered the representations, the Registrar decided to refuse the Appellant’s application and communicated this by letter dated 10 September 2025. Conclusions

19. If an ADI’s name is allowed to be put on or remain on 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. This includes behaviour relating to driving.

20. 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 motoring, 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.

21. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. What the Appellant did may not seem to be a serious offence, but the law treats it very seriously. It is essential that ADIs follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils.

22. We do have sympathy for the Appellant’s position and the circumstances in which the offences were committed. We have considered all of the arguments made by the Appellant and in particular noted that he had done a significant amount of self-reflection since the offences in question. However, although it was a finely-balanced decision, we do not find that there are exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to obtain a trainee licence after committing offences of this nature resulting in six penalty points.

23. We find on the balance of probabilities 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 refusal to grant a second trainee licence as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal