Christopher Williams 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 13 th December 2023 to remove his name from the Register.

2. The Registrar’s reasons for removal, in summary, were that the Appellant had been charged with a sexual offence between November 2022 and June 2023. The Registrar took the view the alleged offending was serious and allowing him to remain on the Register would undermine confidence in it, so determined the Appellant must be removed.

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

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 21 st December 2023, indicates he denies the offence suggested. He believed that a trial was likely to be listed late 2024. The Appellant suggests that the decision to remove him was premature, and it is disproportionate to impose sanctions for a contested issue.

5. The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the Appellant had been charged with a sexual assault upon a pupil. It was said by the pupil that the Appellant had randomly touched her leg, arm, shoulder and hand during lessons. He had also made a comment about her appearance. Subsequently the touching was more intimate involving a touching of the breast and of the inner thigh. The pupil was 17 and cancelled the balance of her lessons after the latter matters. The Registrar indicated he would be failing in his duty to protect others if he allowed the Appellant to remain on the Register. Mode of Determination

6. The case was listed for oral hearing in 2024 and adjourned whilst a prosecution took place. The case was further adjourned whilst details were to be provided, but neither party assisted. The Tribunal has had to enquire of the parties the current position, which is in simply terms that the Appellant was found not guilty of the charges levelled against him, but despite that has no interest in remaining on the Register and seeks leave to abandon his appeal.

7. The Registrar after being contacted indicated that the Appellant’s licence has lapsed and there has been no application to renew it, even following the acquittal. The Registrar in effect says the Appeal even if successful would be to no effect.

8. After giving due consideration to the aforesaid, the overriding objective and the main purpose of the Appeal it was determined in accordance with the Tribunal Rules that a paper determination was entirely appropriate and would allow for a fair and proper disposal of this matter, and so determine the matter accordingly. The Law

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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”.

12. 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

13. In light of the convoluted history of this case and the stance of the Appellant it is entirely appropriate to allow his application to withdraw the Appeal. There is no need to determine the application, which is unnecessary in light of the lapsed licence and the Appellant’s lack of desire to continue. There may be occasions when determining if someone was fit and proper would be appropriate , however in light of the Criminal Court’s finding, the evidence and its source in this case, there is no reason to do so.

14. The Appeal is therefore withdrawn, effective 28 days after this decision is published. If the Registrar or the Appellant seeks to argue that the aforesaid is inappropriate, or to make any further submissions, they may do so by appropriate application and the Tribunal will reconsider matters. In the event that nothing is heard the Appeal shall be at an end. (Signed) HHJ David Dixon DATE: 2 nd October 2025