Shafaat Ishrat Khan v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background to Appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 23 rd July 2025 to remove his name from the Register, as he was no longer fit and proper to be on the same.

2. The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had a speeding conviction for speeding on 21 st February 2025, resulting in 6 points being upon his driving licence. The Registrar deemed the offence serious, such that he was no longer fit and proper and had to be removed from the Register.

3. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision. Appeal to the Tribunal

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 25 th July 2025, indicates he does not believe the Registrar took appropriate regard to the road signage issues at the time, nor the personal mitigation, such that the decision to remove is unfair.

5. In an email to the Registrar the Appellant raised that a vehicle behind him was driving very close and aggressively and accordingly the Appellant felt he needed to speed up to avoid an issue. He says he was caught doing 45 in a 30mph zone. He also asserts the road signage was covered to a degree such that he was unable to see some of the speed signs. He indicated he takes pride in being an instructor and it is his main source of income for a large family. He says that losing his licence will have serious repercussions.

6. The Appellant provided a bundle of character references, and a statement explaining his position in great detail. The references talk of the Appellant being a conscientious instructor, with high moral values; they talk of his adherence to regulations and his dedication to his role. The pupil references talk of his helpful teaching style and more.

7. The Appellant also provided a video of the road concerned, which showed that it was a relatively narrow country type road, with foliage down the sides. There were intermittent lamp posts down one side of the carriageway.

8. Within the bundle provided by the Appellant was a statement from the prosecuting police officer indicating the recorded speed was 53mph in a 30 mph area, i.e. 1 and ¾ times the speed limit.

9. The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the offence was serious, it called into question the Appellant’s suitability to be an ADI. Allowing him to remain on the Register after such an offence would send out the wrong message. Accordingly, the Appellant had to be removed. Mode of Determination

10. The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system.

11. The Appellant attended and was unrepresented. He attended with Rabia Khan, his wife.

12. The Respondent was represented by Andrew Heard of the DVSA Appeals team.

13. The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 28 pages, an Appellant bundle of 50 pages, and a video supplied by the Appellant. Evidence

14. Mr Heard said the Respondent’s position was as per the Response.

15. The Appellant said he was bitterly sorry for the incident. He accepted travelling at 54mph in a 30mph zone. He said the driver behind was too close and he accelerated as a result. He accepted it was the wrong thing to do. He said at the time the road in question was not overly familiar to him, and that was in part the issue. He described the “chasing” car as being overly aggressive, it had not reacted to obvious decisions the Appellant had taken, and this caused the Appellant to act as he did out of fear. Despite indicating all of that the Appellant stressed what he did was wrong, he should have acted differently.

16. The Appellant said he had reflected on things, and taken steps to avoid it happening again. He had undertaken extensive further CPD, focussing on risk management in particular. He had also obtained superior dashcams for full accountability.

17. He described how in his everyday driving he had very high standards, he asserted that he conveyed this to his pupils. He described being an instructor for 18 years and being very well thought of. He stressed this particular driving was completely out of character.

18. He described that being an ADI was his life. If he lost his licence it would massively affect him, his family, and therefore his 5 children. He pleaded for the Tribunal to bear in mind all of his 18 years’ service, against this particular isolated incident.

19. Mrs Khan described how others viewed her husband in a very favourable way. She described how she had never seen him drive in an inappropriate way. She described they had travelled by car extensively and still there had never been any incidents. She reiterated the impact on the family that would follow if he lost his status. She stressed that since the incident she had noticed a difference in her husband, in the way he drives and his general risk assessments. She too asked that he be allowed to remain on the Register. The Law

20. 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 of Approved Driving Instructors – see s. 125 (3) and s. 127 (3) (e) Road Traffic Act 1988 . http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/V/crossheading/registration

21. The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory criteria rests with the Registrar.

22. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 , the Court of Appeal described the “ http:/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/808.html fit and proper person” condition thus: “..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…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”.

23. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Registrar’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing i.e. the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as is considered appropriate to the Registrar’s reasons as the Registrar is the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process. See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 . http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html . Approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 at paragraph 45 – see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf . Conclusion

24. The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

25. Here the Appellant was caught speeding and issued with six points. He was travelling considerably in excess of the limit for the road and on the sentencing guidelines was lucky not to have been disqualified. Travelling at nearly twice the speed limit is not something the Tribunal can overlook easily.

26. Further to that the explanation of speeding due to another driver’s conduct is, in the Tribunal’s view, worrying. An ADI should know what to do under such circumstances and act accordingly, not deliberately decide to break the law. The explanation causes the Appellant more issues than it assists with. The Appellant’s attempt to balance the decisions made on this day compared to his normal driving are not easy to reconcile. Even allowing for the good character advanced by the Appellant and supported by the references, the driving on this day was completely inappropriate.

27. The Registrar, and therefore the Tribunal, must bear in mind that ADIs are teaching individuals to comply with the law. It would be somewhat disingenuous for the Appellant to say we must all comply with the Rules when he has not. The Tribunal comes to the view that allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register sends out the wrong message and undermines the faith the public could have in the name “approved” driving instructor. The Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant, and the Tribunal endorses that decision. Here whilst it is only one offence, the severity of the same, where the Appellant was lucky to only receive 6 points, is simply too serious to take a different view. The Appellant’s explanations only cements the position.

28. The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant was remorseful and bitterly regretted his actions. The Tribunal bore that in mind but couldn’t look past the offending to say that the Appellant remained fit and proper. Whilst the references were impressive, the offending outweighed the same.

29. The Tribunal gave careful consideration to the effect of removal, but when balanced against the offending came to the clear view that removal was necessary and proportionate.

30. The Appeal is regrettably dismissed with immediate effect. HHJ DAVID DIXON Date: 16 th December 2025