Harris v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (Rev 1)

Whether a person is a fit and proper person to remain on a professional register is assessed in the statutory context. For approved driving instructors, the inquiry is not confined to teaching or driving ability, or to the risk of mistreating pupils. It may include character, behaviour, standards of conduct and the need to maintain public confidence in the register.

Deliberate failure to disclose convictions, or false declarations about them, is particularly relevant because it undermines the Registrar’s ability to scrutinise applications and the reliability of the registration process. Convictions must nevertheless be assessed individually and in context. A tribunal errs if it makes an unsupported generalised finding, but the error is immaterial where the decision is independently justified by more substantial considerations.

The appellant had been an approved driving instructor for many years. The Registrar refused to extend his registration after discovering several convictions, including dishonesty offences, assaults, criminal damage and a public-order offence. The appellant had disclosed the most recent conviction but had failed to disclose earlier convictions in applications made in 1997 and 2001, despite the disclosure requirements.

The Transport Tribunal dismissed his appeal under section 131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It held that the Registrar could consider character, behaviour, standards of conduct and spent convictions, and concluded that the non-disclosure and the convictions showed that the appellant was no longer fit and proper to remain registered. The appeal concerned the proper scope of that condition, procedural fairness and alleged absence of evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal had not erred in treating the statutory condition in section 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as extending beyond instructional ability. Registration was official approval, and maintaining public confidence in the register was a relevant consideration.
2. The expression fit and proper takes its colour from its statutory context. In this context, the Registrar could consider whether the applicant’s personal qualities, character, behaviour and standards of conduct were compatible with registration, alongside the more specific statutory conditions concerning ability and licensing.
3. The deliberate failure to disclose convictions, and false declarations that there were no convictions, were highly relevant. They impaired the Registrar’s ability to make a timely decision on the true merits and went to the integrity of the registration process. The tribunal was entitled to regard this as the most serious aspect of the case.
4. The tribunal was entitled to take the convictions into account, including spent convictions. It reasonably found that the appellant’s self-centred conduct, particularly in relation to the public-order offence, was relevant to fitness for registration. The dishonesty convictions were also relevant to the integrity required by the registration process, even though there was no allegation of dishonesty in the driving-instruction business.
5. The tribunal had made an over-generalised finding of a tendency to react with unlawful violence. The convictions occurred in a narrow domestic context and did not support that general conclusion. That error was immaterial because the predominant and sufficient reason for the decision was the deliberate and dishonest non-disclosure, supported by the other relevant findings.
6. There was no procedural unfairness. The appellant knew that his character, behaviour and standards of conduct were in issue and had a fair opportunity to address the convictions and non-disclosure. The tribunal was entitled to draw its own conclusions from the evidence and was not required to put draft findings to him. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights added nothing material to the common-law requirements of fairness in the circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from the Transport Tribunal dismissed: [2010] EWCA Civ 808.
• Transport Tribunal: appeal under section 131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 dismissed by order dated 27 August 2009.