Key Facts
- •Mohammed Sami Uddin's application to be on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (ADI) was refused.
- •The refusal was based on Uddin accumulating 6 penalty points for driving without insurance.
- •Uddin appealed the Registrar's decision.
- •Uddin claimed he drove uninsured due to his uncle becoming unwell while they were picking up a car.
- •Uddin stated he mistakenly believed he had comprehensive insurance covering other cars.
Legal Principles
An ADI applicant must be a "fit and proper person" to be on the register.
Section 125(3) and 127(3)(e) Road Traffic Act 1988
The Registrar's decision is subject to a rehearing by the Tribunal, which considers the evidence afresh and gives appropriate weight to the Registrar's reasons.
Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808; R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31; Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60
Maintaining public confidence in the register is important, requiring effective scrutiny of applicants' convictions.
Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that driving without insurance is a serious breach of motoring law, and Uddin's explanation of a simple lapse in judgment was not accepted. The Tribunal emphasized the high standards expected of ADIs and considered allowing Uddin on the register would be hypocritical.