Dharminder Sidhu 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 18 th February 2025 to revoke the Appellant’s trainee licence as he was no longer fit and proper.

2. The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that there had been complaints made about the Appellant’s behaviour that were unacceptable and rendered the Appellant unsuitable to be an ADI. The Registrar took the view the Appellant could not remain licensed as allowing him to do so would undermine confidence in the process.

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

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 18 th February 2025, makes it abundantly clear that he refutes the allegations made. He denies any kissing, touching or otherwise. Despite that he accepts being willing to accept a caution, saying he really enjoys his job and would like to be able to continue with it.

5. The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the alleged behaviour was unacceptable and that the Appellant’s licence must be removed. The Respondent indicated that a statement was taken from the pupil concerned and that the Appellant was asked about it. The Appellant denied kissing or trying to kiss the pupil concerned saying he was leaning into the footwell to pick up a cloth and the pupil was mistaken thinking he was trying to kiss her. He did ask to use her toilet, but this was a genuine request not a ploy to get into her house. He accepted his text communications “crossed the line,” which he regretted, but argued that he never had the intentions for her that she thought he did. He accepted being over friendly.

6. Screenshots of the text exchanges between them were supplied to the Tribunal, which are at least overly friendly. The content is not arranging lessons or the like more of the character of a “friendship,” which is not professional. He described her view that he was lunging at her in the car as “just having a joke.” Mode of Determination

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

8. The Appellant did not attend but was represented by Elke Maclean, solicitor. The Appellant was expected to attend, but did not. Ms Maclean indicated she had full instructions and was able to argue the Appellant’s case. (An attempt was made to contact the Appellant in the hearing by telephone to no effect.)

9. The Respondent was represented by Darren Russell of the DVSA Appeals team, who joined by telephone.

10. The Tribunal determined that in light of a fixed hearing date, the Appellant’s indication that he was expected to attend, that neither the Tribunal nor his solicitor were given an indication of difficulties attending, that full instructions had been provided that it was appropriate to continue in the Appellant’s absence. (The Tribunal indicated in the event that the Appellant had been unable to attend for an exceptional reason the Tribunal had the power, upon an appropriate application being received, to set aside the following determination.)

11. The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 41 pages. Submissions

12. Mr Russell said the Respondent’s position was as per the Response.

13. Ms Maclean submitted that the Appellant adamantly denied that he tried to kiss the complainant. She suggested that the Appellant was trying to reach into the rear of the car to pick up something and the whole thing was a misunderstanding.

14. She accepted he was overly friendly, but he thought that his relationship with the complainant was more than just instructor/pupil and more of a platonic friendship. He accepts this was not appropriate in hindsight.

15. She argued that he liked his job and fully understood that his behaviour could not be repeated. He accepted that he must act professionally at all times and he had learnt from these circumstances. The Law

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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”.

19. 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

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

21. The Appellant accepts that his text communications with the complainant was unprofessional. The Tribunal takes the view it was seriously unprofessional. It was overly friendly, it more than crossed the line in terms of what was acceptable between instructor and pupil and consequently was extremely concerning.

22. The “kissing issue” is difficult to resolve on the materials provided. Something clearly happened that the complainant took to be at least an attempt to kiss her. Her comments within the text exchange make it clear that was not what she was looking for or was acceptable to her. This supports her allegation. The Appellant’s reply of it was just a joke is at complete odds with his pleaded case of reaching for something within the car. It goes someway to confirm he was doing something of a personal nature. Whilst the Tribunal is unable to find that he was trying to kiss her, it can without any hesitation find that his conduct was overly close to cause the complainant concern, and secondly was not simply him picking up something in the car. The “victim blaming” by the Appellant is unacceptable, and that along with the disingenuous assertion of innocent behaviour calls into question his honesty and integrity.

23. ADIs are given responsibility to teach often young and impressionable people. As the complainant here rightly indicates the Appellant’s behaviour towards her raises real issues of the way he might behave towards others. His text communication was also overly friendly and unprofessional. His physical behaviour in the car was unacceptable. This lady was able to robustly assert her position, another might not be able to, in light of the Appellant’s position as instructor. The Registrar is entirely right to be concerned about the risks the Appellant poses.

24. Looking at the circumstances here the Tribunal comes to the view that the Appellant is no longer fit and proper. The Registrar simply cannot let someone that has behaved in this way be “approved.” His conduct is not becoming of an ADI and the Registrar can not risk that his behaviour would not be repeated. The suggestion of a caution fails to appreciate the severity of the conduct, and would not deal with the issues in this Appeal.

25. The Tribunal gave careful consideration to the effect of revocation, but when balanced against the behaviour came to the clear view that revocation was entirely necessary.

26. The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. HHJ David Dixon Date: 2 nd September 2025