Driving instructor appeal dismissed by tribunal

In the case of Hussein Baqer v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors, a significant dispute arose over the qualifications necessary for becoming an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI). The appellant, Hussein Baqer, sought to overturn a decision made by the Registrar on 3 September 2024 which resulted in his application for admission to the Register of Approved Driving Instructors being denied due to his prior driving offence that led to unfitness.

Baqer's appeal revolved around a fixed penalty he received, resulting in six points on his driving licence due to inappropriate use of a mobile phone while driving. During the tribunal's video proceedings, fairness was acknowledged despite the absence of the Registrar, as Baqer appeared in person while the Registrar's representative was otherwise engaged. The tribunal decided to continue without the representative's presence.

In Baqer's Notice of Appeal, he claimed he had never received points on his licence before this incident. He promptly informed the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) about the situation, emphasising his reputation as a responsible driving instructor who advises students against phone use while driving. In contrast, the Registrar argued that the appellant showed insufficient responsibility, particularly as he received points while reportedly on the phone as he entered his vehicle.

Legal guidelines concerning the registration of ADIs require that individuals are deemed a "fit and proper person" to hold such a position. This standard underlines the high expectations from ADIs due to their critical role in influencing student drivers' attitudes towards road safety. The tribunal clarified that the burden of proof rests with the Registrar to demonstrate a prospective instructor's unfitness.

The tribunal referenced past rulings that elaborated on what being a "fit and proper person" entails, underscoring the implications of actions that might impair public trust in the Register. The judiciary's responsibility involves ensuring that only individuals with suitable standing are allowed to register.

In its evaluation, the tribunal reviewed a comprehensive bundle of evidence, including Baqer’s submissions where he detailed the offence. He expressed remorse for his actions, stating that panic ensued as he tried to calm a distraught partner over the phone, affirming that he generally adheres to road safety protocols. Nonetheless, the tribunal ruled that driving while using a mobile phone contradicts the standards expected of an ADI and poses serious risks to road safety.

Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that allowing someone who exhibited poor judgement regarding road regulations to register would undermine the integrity of the register. Public expectations dictate that ADIs maintain exemplary legal and ethical standards. Although there was sympathy for Baqer's situation and acknowledgment of his error, the tribunal found no exceptional circumstances that would warrant his registration in light of the serious nature of the driving violation.

In summary, the tribunal upheld the Registrar's initial decision, ruling Baqer not to be a fit and proper person per legal criteria, thereby dismissing the appeal. This case underscores the judiciary's commitment to enforcing high standards for individuals entrusted with the critical role of teaching future drivers.