Hamza Malik v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction :

1. This is the Tribunal’s decision on an appeal brought by Mr Hamza Malik under section 131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 against the decision of the Registrar of ADI’s (“the Registrar”) dated 14 July 2025 to remove his name from the Register on the ground that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person (section 128(2)(e)).

2. The Tribunal heard the appeal on 4 March 2026. Mr Malik appeared in person. The Tribunal is grateful to both parties for their assistance. Background:

3. Mr Malik was first entered onto the Register in June 2023, with registration due to expire in June 2027.

4. On 10 July 2025 he pleaded guilty at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court to being concerned in the supply of cannabis between 8 May 2018 and 5 July 2024. He was committed to Cambridge Crown Court for sentence and, on 24 October 2025, received a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for twelve months, with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of up to 15 days and a forfeiture/destruction order. He remains subject to probation supervision. The Registrar’s decision:

5. The Registrar’s reasons are set out in detail in Registrar’s reasoning (D18). In summary, the Registrar concluded: ◦ The offence was serious and incompatible with the level of trust required of ADIs. ◦ Registration signifies not only competence but good character and behaviour, and public confidence would be undermined were an instructor recently convicted of drug-supply permitted to remain on the Register. ◦ A six-year period of offending represented a substantial and concerning departure from the standards expected. ◦ It would be unfair to compliant ADIs to allow Mr Malik to remain registered when others abide scrupulously by the law.

6. After considering Mr Malik’s representations (D7–17), the Registrar determined that he could not be satisfied that Mr Malik remained a fit and proper person. The Appellant’s case:

7. In Appellant’s representations (D7–17) and before the Tribunal, Mr Malik submitted that: ◦ He accepted responsibility and entered an early guilty plea. ◦ His cannabis use arose from severe anxiety, depression and insomnia, and he had applied for a medical cannabis prescription shortly before arrest. ◦ He has now stopped all cannabis use. ◦ He was a heavy user but not involved in commercial supply; he said his involvement was limited and linked to self-medication. ◦ He has a strong professional track record, supported by numerous positive character references from pupils and colleagues, many of which were included in the bundle. ◦ He recently obtained an HGV Class 2 licence, demonstrating commitment to road safety and professional development. ◦ He maintained that he is not a risk to pupils and that removal from the Register is disproportionate given his remorse and intention to reform. Evidence before the Tribunal:

8. The Tribunal had before it the full bundle, including: ◦ Police evidence confirming the discovery of approximately 1 kilogram of vacuum-sealed cannabis in Mr Malik’s vehicle (police email at D1). ◦ Medical documentation, including prescriptions for cannabis-based products (Curaleaf letters July–August 2024). ◦ Multiple character references attesting to his professionalism and supportive teaching style. ◦ His personal statement and formal appeal documents. ◦ The conviction certificate and complete sentencing outcome (24 October 2025). Legal framework:

9. Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that a person’s name may remain on the Register only if the Registrar is satisfied that the person “ is a fit and proper person”.

10. The Tribunal’s role is to consider the matter afresh, assessing suitability at the date of the hearing.

11. The key considerations include: • Nature and seriousness of the offence • Duration of offending • Insight, remorse and rehabilitation • Risk to learners and public safety • Whether continued registration would maintain public confidence in the ADI Register and the DVSA’s regulatory system Findings of fact:

12. The Tribunal finds the following: (1) Serious and prolonged criminal conduct Mr Malik was involved in the supply of cannabis for six years. This was not a one-off lapse but sustained offending. (2) Heavy cannabis use The police report records Mr Malik admitting daily use of 2.5–3 grams per day. The Tribunal accepts that he was a heavy, long-term user. (3) Quantity inconsistent with “solely personal use” The presence of approximately 1 kg of vacuum-sealed cannabis strongly suggests involvement beyond personal therapeutic consumption. (4) Suspension of sentence indicates seriousness A suspended custodial sentence represents a serious conviction, though not requiring immediate imprisonment. (5) Concerns regarding fitness to instruct Heavy late-evening cannabis use is likely to affect cognitive function the following morning. Although there is no direct evidence of impairment during lessons, the Tribunal considers the risk credible. (6) Positive references The Tribunal accepts the character references as genuine and reflective of Mr Malik’s conduct during lessons. (7) Insight and remorse Mr Malik’s remorse appears genuine. However, his rehabilitation is incomplete while he remains on probation. Assessment: Fit and proper person

13. An Approved Driving Instructor holds a position of trust and works closely with often young or vulnerable learners in safety-critical contexts.

14. The question is not simply whether Mr Malik poses a current risk, but whether allowing him to remain registered would be compatible with maintaining public confidence in the Register.

15. In light of: • The serious and extended nature of the offending, • The recentness of the conviction and the ongoing suspended sentence, • The amount of cannabis recovered, • The Tribunal’s concern that heavy cannabis use is incompatible with safe and reliable instruction, • And the Registrar’s clear and cogent reasoning in D18, the Tribunal finds that public confidence would be undermined were Mr Malik to remain on the Register at this time.

16. The Tribunal considered whether a lesser measure (such as a time-limited suspension) could adequately protect public confidence. It concluded that it could not. The combination of the seriousness, duration, and recency of the offending means that removal is the proportionate regulatory response. Mitigation:

17. The Tribunal acknowledges: • Mr Malik’s remorse and early guilty plea; • His personal difficulties at the time of the offending; • His strong teaching record and positive references; • His vocational achievements, including the HGV Class 2 test.

18. However, in professions and roles grounded in public trust, even material mitigation cannot outweigh significant conduct that is fundamentally incompatible with the role. The Tribunal unanimously concludes that this is such a case. Conclusion:

19. For all the reasons above, the Tribunal finds that Mr Malik has ceased to be a fit and proper person within the meaning of section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 .

20. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Future re-application:

21. Nothing in this decision prevents Mr Malik from applying for registration again in the future. Any such application should be supported by: • Evidence of completion of his suspended sentence and rehabilitation requirements, • A sustained period free from offending and cannabis use, and • Any independent evidence demonstrating stability and fitness.

22. It will be for the Registrar to determine any future application on its merits at that time. Brian Kennedy KC 11 March 2026.