Dennis Chapman 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 to refuse the Appellant’s application for extension of his registration as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”), in accordance with s127(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1998 (“the Act” ).

2. In summary: the Registrar reached the Decision on the basis that he did not consider the Appellant to be a fit and proper person to be an ADI given that the Appellant was convicted of criminal offences in 2023 resulting in a suspended prison sentence, unpaid work and rehabilitation, together with the fact that the Appellant had failed to declare his convictions to the Registrar within 7 days of sustaining them.

3. On 10 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 10 June 2025 explains that: a. He has been a driving instructor for 37 years and has never had any driving convictions in his life. b. The Decision is wrong and unfair as it relates to a conviction in October 2023, which he admitted. c. He is remorseful for his actions.

7. By way of outcome, the Appellant seeks that the Decision be overturned.

8. The Registrar's Statement of Case dated 21 October 2025 resists the appeal. In summary, the Registrar submits that: a. The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in April 1989 and in the normal course his certificate of registration expired on the last day of May 2025. b. On 10 April 2025, in anticipation of extending his period of registration, the Appellant was issued with a Disclosure and Barring Service check c. On 14 April 2025, the Registrar requested the Appellant’s enhanced disclosure certificate, which the Appellant provided on 20 April 2025, showing a previously undeclared conviction. The Appellant explained that in October 2023 he had received a 24-month suspended sentence for property damage and for having a knife in the boot of his car which was part of a tyre repair kit; in April 2023, the Appellant had purchased a car which was defective; having failed to resolve matters with the seller of the car, the Appellant had damaged the tyres of the seller’s car with the knife, for which the Appellant was arrested. d. As the Appellant had not submitted an application to extend his period of registration, the Registrar instructed him to do so on 22 April 2025. e. On 1 May 2025, the Appellant submitted the application, in which he declared convictions for damage of property, pursuing a course of conduct amounting to harassment and possession of a sharp pointed article. The Appellant explained that on 9 May 2023, following a guilty plea, he was convicted, and sentenced to 9 weeks imprisonment for possessing a knife blade/sharp article in a public place and 2 weeks imprisonment for harassment without violence, both suspended for 24 months, 150 hours unpaid work and rehabilitation activity. The Registrar sought and obtained separate confirmation of the conviction and sentence from the Court. f. The Appellant had failed to notify the Registrar of his conviction within 7 days in breach of the declaration made by the Appellant on application to extend his registration on 5 May 2021. g. The Registrar concluded that in light of the previously undeclared convictions, the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name retained in the Register. h. On 11 May 2025, the Appellant sent representations to the Registrar, in summary, as follows: the Appellant had never had any motoring convictions or offences in his life; the Appellant very much regretted the events leading him to commit the offences; the Court had taken into account his good character references, absence of previous convictions and his understanding of how he felt on discovering the defects in the car; the Appellant had been reminded that he should have proceeded against the seller of the car through the small claims court but had not pursued that route after being charged because he wished to avoid further stress. The Appellant explained to the Registrar that he was aware that at the time of being charged in October 2023, the DVSA would have been informed of the charges. i. The Registrar was unconvinced by the Appellant’s explanation as to why the Appellant was in possession of a knife in a public place: as part of a tyre repair kit. In the circumstances, the Registrar did not consider the Appellant could fulfil the requirement of the Act to be a fit and proper person. j. The Registrar’s reasons for the Decision are as follows: i. The Appellant has been convicted of possessing a knife blade/sharp article in a public place, harassment without violence and two counts of criminal damage resulting in a suspended custodial sentence. The Appellant failed to notify the Registrar of the offence within 7 days. 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 entrusted to those with high standards. The Registrar would be failing in his public duty if he allowed a person who had been convicted of these offences to have his name retained in the Register. 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. ii. 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 set out the Appellant’s convictions. He emphasised that the fact that the Appellant had committed two acts of criminal damage four days apart indicated that the Appellant’s action was not impulsive but the result of a conscious decision. He noted that the Appellant had failed to declare the conviction within 7 days as required. He submitted that in light of the events in question, it would not be acceptable in the eyes of the public or other ADIs for the Appellant to remain on the Register.

10. The Appellant explained to us in detail the events giving rise to the offences. We consider that he was honest in his account. He became emotional at points in his account, and we do not doubt that he is genuinely remorseful. He explained to us that he failed to pursue his grievance against the seller through the Courts because of the pressure he felt at the time: he had spent £14,000 on the car and felt stupid; he wanted to resolve matters with the seller but was not sleeping, everyone relies on him and he “put too much on himself”. 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 38 pages. The relevant facts

15. We find the following facts.

16. The Appellant was under pressure at the time of the relevant events. He had paid £14,000 for a car in which to give driving tuition, which turned out to be defective; he was due to sell his old car in 3 days and had invested £600 in dual controls which he could not now use in the new car. Ultimately, he sold the new car at a £4,000 loss.

17. The Appellant has helped friends and family to buy cars for 40 years. He has mechanical knowledge. He test drove the new car for 30 minutes but undertook no other checks beyond asking the seller whether there were any problems with the car and being told of two minor issues which did not trouble him. The seller of the car did not disclose to the Appellant that there was a significant problem with the car’s gearbox.

18. The Appellant was frustrated by the seller’s refusal to engage with him to resolve his concerns. The Appellant had obtained a repair quote of around £4,000 and he had intended to ask the seller to contribute to that cost. The Appellant tells us that he always has tools in his car and had a Stanley knife in his tyre repair kit. On his first visit to the seller’s house on 4 May 2023, he was there for 20 minutes but the seller would not answer the door or the telephone. The Appellant returned to his own car, took the Stanley knife out of the toolkit, and burst the tyre of the seller’s car. There were two cars on the seller’s driveway and the Appellant assumed that the car with the seller’s personalised registration was the seller’s car. He elected to damage that car. The car was then undrivable. He understood that the seller witnessed the damage, believing that “everything was on camera”.

19. Between 4 May and 8 May 2023, the Appellant tried to contact the seller numerous times by telephone and text. He received no response. On 8 May 2023, he returned to the seller’s house, he says with the intention of seeking to resolve matters. Again, the seller did not respond to him, so he decided to damage the seller’s car a second time. He then drove away and was shortly thereafter arrested by armed police.

20. On 9 May 2023, the Appellant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, two charges of criminal damage to property. The Appellant was ordered to pay compensation of £500 in relation to each act of criminal damage.

21. On 30 August 2023, after trial on indictment, the Appellant was convicted of possessing a knife blade/sharp pointed article in a public place on 8 May 2023. The Appellant received a 9-week prison sentence suspended for 24 months, was made subject to a rehabilitation activity requirement, and was required to carry out unpaid work for 150 hours.

22. On 30 August 2023, after trial on indictment, the Appellant was convicted of harassment without violence between 30 April 2023 and 9 June 2023 by calling and texting an individual, leaving 22 voicemails for the individual, and attending at their address. The Appellant received a concurrent 2-week prison sentence suspended for 24 months, was made subject to a rehabilitation activity requirement, and was required to carry out unpaid work for 150 hours.

23. The Appellant was obliged to declare to the Registrar within 7 days if he was convicted of any offence. The Appellant failed to do so. Conclusions

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register. In our view, a person convicted of offences of the type under consideration in this case, is not a person of appropriate standing.

27. The Appellant has been convicted of serious offences, two of which were sufficiently serious to merit suspended prison sentences.

28. In our view, the manner in which the offences of criminal damage came about is an aggravating feature: they occurred on separate days, 4 and 8 May 2023, that is to say, the offence was repeated, and on both occasions the Appellant made a deliberate decision to attend at the seller’s house, and damage his car.

29. The offence of harassment occurred over a sustained period, that is to say between 30 April 2023 and 9 June 2023.

30. The Appellant had other, lawful means available to him to pursue his grievance against the seller of the car but chose not to pursue them.

31. The Appellant did not inform the Registrar of his convictions. Although the Appellant says that he believed that DVSA would inform the Registrar of his being charged, as to the truth of which belief we make no finding, this overlooks the declaration made by the Appellant himself that he would volunteer the fact of any convictions to the Registrar within 7 days .

32. We have considered carefully the Appellant’s explanation of how he came to commit the offences: his frustration with the seller of the car not responding to his call; that his concerns about financial matters were affecting his rational thinking; and that he was not sleeping at night. While we are sympathetic to those matters, in our view, they cannot justify the serious offences he committed.

33. The Appellant has explained that, if his application to extend his registration is refused, he will likely lose his job of 37 years. We accept that if that happens, that will be very unfortunate. It is evident that the Appellant deeply regrets what he did, and has found the entire process of being arrested, charged and convicted to be very traumatic. He has shown insight into how it was that he came to do what he did.

34. However, viewing maters in the round, given the serious nature of the offences and the circumstances of their committal, we are constrained to 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.

35. We dismiss the appeal.