Haider Al-Janabi v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

Background

1. The appellant applied on 22 June 2025 for an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) trainee licence. The Registrar refused the application for a licence to give instructions in driving motor cars under Section 125(3) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 , determining that the appellant was not a “fit and proper person” for entry to the register.

2. The refusal was grounded on a CU80 mobile phone offence committed on 9 February 2025 for which the appellant accepted a fixed penalty notice and accrued six penalty points on his licence. The Registrar’s written reasons emphasise that ADI’s must meet standards beyond mere instructional ability, including character, behaviour, and conduct consistent with road safety leadership. The Registrar considered that condoning this offence—particularly committed while progressing through the ADI qualification—would undermine road safety standards and public confidence in the registration system.

3. In his appeal and supporting bundle, the appellant accepts responsibility for the offence, explains that it occurred in the context of a “ serious and urgent family medical emergency” while stationary in traffic at a red light he confirms he was observed by a CCTV camera monitoring traffic, and he has provided character references, training investment evidence, and post-incident remediation (including a Driver Awareness Course, Highway Code study, and an explicit commitment to professional standards). He offers to undertake further assessments if required. Issues for Determination

4. a) Whether, in light of the offence and surrounding circumstances, the appellant is a fit and proper person to be granted an ADI trainee licence. b) Whether the Registrar’s refusal was reasonable and proportionate given the statutory objectives of road safety and public confidence. Legal Framework and Principles

5. The statutory test requires the Tribunal to assess whether the appellant is a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence that allows him to teach for paid instruction and be entrusted to teach learner drivers, a role that carries significant public safety responsibilities.

6. The evaluation encompasses character, behaviour, and adherence to road safety standards, not only technical instructional ability.

7. Proportionality and public confidence in the ADI register are central: permitting entry should not sanction or trivialise serious road traffic offending, especially offences directly implicating safety culture including mobile phone use while driving.

8. The offence (CU80) is safety-critical: use of a mobile phone while driving is known to degrade attention and risk collision. The Registrar’s concern is heightened because the appellant was progressing through qualification, a phase when exemplary compliance is expected. This factor supports the serious view taken by the Registrar.

9. It is a criminal offence to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving. The Highway Code states: “You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone while driving.” (Highway Code, Rule 149, referencing Road Traffic Act 1988 , s.41 D and Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, reg. 110, and equivalent provisions in Northern Ireland.)

10. Use of lawful hands-free systems is permitted, but drivers must always remain in proper control of the vehicle and avoid undue distraction. (Highway Code, Rules 149 and 150.) Context and Mitigation

11. The appellant has offered credible, documented mitigation: an urgent family medical emergency and stationary position at a red signal. While the law is clear that mobile phone use in control of a vehicle is prohibited, evidence of exceptional, acute stress and immediate remorse mitigates personal blameworthiness. Additionally, character references, awareness training, and a structured learning plan appear to demonstrate genuine reflection and risk-reducing behavioural change.

12. The materials reveal a single incident, not a recurring pattern. In regulatory fitness assessments, isolated lapses—if followed by demonstrable rehabilitation—may be compatible with fitness, provided public confidence is not undermined. The absence of further infractions and the positive steps taken weigh in the appellant’s favour.

13. Public confidence requires that ADIs model safe, lawful behaviour. Upholding the Registrar’s decision communicates zero tolerance for phone-use offences by would-be instructors. Conversely, acknowledging exceptional circumstances and robust remediation can also reinforce confidence by signalling that the register rewards responsibility, honesty, and corrective action. The Registrar did not believe that the appellant would hold the requisite standards that they would expect to see from a potential ADI. The question for the Tribunal is whether the appellant’s current risk profile and professional ethos now meet the fit and proper threshold without diminishing standards. On balance, the appellant maintains he has shown sustained remedial engagement and commitment to compliance, which can be recognised without diluting the gravity of the offence.

14. This is a case of the utmost importance, and the Tribunal stress this case has been decided on merits. On hearing the parties and considering all the material evidence, the Tribunal must decide the appeal. The offence is fundamentally incompatible with the “fit and proper” standard expected of ADI trainees, particularly given its timing during qualification and the circumstances pertaining at the time of a particular serious driving offence admitted by the appellant. Upholding the Registrar’s refusal preserves public confidence and the integrity of road safety standards.

15. Seriousness and Timing: The offence is serious and occurred during qualification, a factor that ordinarily weighs strongly against fitness. The Registrar’s stance is principled and aimed at maintaining high standards and public trust.

16. The appellant received a CU80 offence (using a hand-held mobile phone while driving) and his licence is endorsed with six points. This is undisputed. The offence occurred during the appellant’s ADI qualification process, during which heightened compliance with road safety rules is reasonably expected of a prospective instructor also undisputed in the evidence at hearing.

17. The appellant’s explanation of acute family medical urgency and being stationary at a red light was purportedly supported in the bundle by medical letters and other documentation; he expressed unequivocal remorse and accepted the legal position.

18. Post-incident, the appellant undertook remedial steps: a Driver Awareness Course, targeted study of the Highway Code, commitment to the ADI Code of Practice, and production of character references (including from an ADI trainer). He also invested materially in qualification, having passed Parts 1 and 2.

19. Prior to the hearing, there was no evidence before the Tribunal of any additional motoring offences or a pattern of conduct beyond this single incident. Conclusion

20. Having reviewed the totality of the evidence and in particular the evidence established at the hearing, the Tribunal considers the following findings on the balance of probabilities: a. The appellant was driving on the date of his admitted offence when he received a phone call from his sister. b. The appellant answered and used the phone in a hand-held manner while the vehicle was stationary in traffic held at lights and in readiness to move. c. The appellant’s vehicle was equipped with a Bluetooth hands-free facility, available and operational at the time and the appellant knew how to operate this facility. d. The appellant was aware that a call from his sister could concern his father’s health and might cause emotional distress however it transpires the call did not give rise to a life-threatening scenario and his father was in a distant foreign country. In other words, he conceded when questioned it was a condition where there was nothing he could do at that point in time anyway. There is no evidence of an emergency necessitating immediate hand-held use of the phone, nor evidence that safe alternatives (hands-free, allowing the call to go to voicemail, or safely stopping) were unavailable. - the Tribunal find this did not amount to a “serious and urgent family medical emergency ” or in deed a material emergency in the real sense of the word. e. The appellant, giving evidence at the appeal hearing confirmed he had previously undertaken a Speed Awareness Course following a marginal speeding offence, during which the risk associated with using a hand-held mobile phone while driving was explained. In his evidence to the Tribunal, he also accepted that he knew about the risks at all material times. Analysis and Reasons

21. The statutory framework is clear: the use of a hand-held mobile phone while driving is prohibited. The appellant accepts he was holding the phone during the call. The presence of an operational Bluetooth hands-free facility meant lawful compliance was entirely feasible. There is no adequate excuse for the offence committed in the circumstances of this appeal.

22. The appellant’s prior attendance at a Speed Awareness Course reinforces that he had actual notice of the risks and the legal prohibition. The Tribunal finds the appellant breached the statutory duty and did so in circumstances where he knew, and did know at the material time, that hand-held use of a mobile phone was unlawful, unsafe and in the circumstances unnecessary.

23. The appellant contended that the potential subject-matter of the call (his father’s health) justified immediate engagement. The Tribunal accepts that such a call could cause emotional distress and present a heightened risk of distraction. However, this increases, rather than diminishes, the obligation to act with care. Further during the hearing of the appeal and after close examination of the factual matrix pertaining at the relevant time there was no good reason for such a dramatic response in the circumstances.

24. A reasonable driver, aware of the likely emotional impact and equipped with a hands-free system, would have used hands-free or allowed the call to go to voicemail, or safely stopped at the earliest opportunity before engaging. The failure to utilise an available, lawful precaution—particularly with prior training on the dangers and his admitted full knowledge of same—falls below the standard of a reasonable driver. 3) Proportionality and Less Restrictive Means

25. The appellant’s wish to respond promptly did not justify compromising road safety or breaching the law. The same objective—rapid communication—could have been achieved by hands-free use without materially increasing risk, or by briefly delaying the call to stop safely. These less restrictive, lawful alternatives were readily available, and the appellant was clearly aware of them at the material time.

26. In these circumstances, the appellant’s decision to use a hand-held phone was disproportionate relative to the risks created and the availability of safer means. Conclusion

27. The Tribunal unanimously finds that the appellant: a) Used a hand-held mobile phone while driving, contrary to the applicable statutory prohibition; b) Failed to act reasonably, given the known and understood risks of distraction and the availability of hands-free technology; and c) Acted disproportionately, as safer, lawful alternatives were readily available.

28. Accordingly, the Tribunal must dismiss the appeal and uphold the Respondent decision. Dismissed

29. The Registrar’s refusal is upheld, and no trainee licence shall issue. Brian Kennedy KC 8 December 2025.