The number of complaints against driver trainers regarding incidents of a sexual nature with pupils have increased in recent times.
Some of this increase has been attributed by some commentators as down to the “Saville effect”, whereby there is a general increased awareness of abuse and a greater willingness to come forward and report it.
The official Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has also proved a catalyst for many to report incidents to the police, both recent and historic.
All the ADI representative bodies and the DVSA take these complaints very seriously and act quickly if cases demand it.
Driver trainers convicted of sexual assaults or sexually related offences are removed from the ADI Register swiftly. Thankfully, convictions are fairly rare but they do happen and we must remain vigilant.
However, because they are rare the focus of the profession has turned towards complaints of what is known as ‘sexual grooming’. This is defined as when someone builds an emotional connection with a child to gain their trust for the purposes of sexual abuse or exploitation. It is noteworthy that nearly all the complaints of this nature are against men over 55 and are made by women under 20 years of age.
Most people know that the age of consent is 16; however, there are different rules when one of the people involved is in a ‘position of trust’ with the other person.
For example, a teacher is breaking the law if they have sex or “groom” one of their students, even if they’re over the age of consent but under 18.
Groomers may be male or female. They could be any age, a stranger or someone they know – for example, a friend or a professional person such as an ADI. Many children and young people don’t understand that they have been groomed, or that what has happened is still classed as abuse – even if the younger person appears to participate willingly.
Grooming of itself is an offence but is difficult to prove and rarely ends in police charges. Young people and their parents are often reluctant to give evidence in court for various reasons, particularly when no physical contact has taken place.
Removing these people from the ADI Register can be very difficult, despite the nature of what they have done being, in my view, quite repellent. Grooming accusations, I have seen include trainers offering half-price lessons for sexual favours and requests for the swapping of intimate images with clients.
It is clear that driver trainers have a Duty of Care to their clients. Teachers/trainers are required to do all that is reasonable to protect the health, safety and welfare of pupils. Their legal responsibilities derive from: their common law duty of care; their statutory duty of care; and their duty arising from their work in carrying out training on the road.
They are not only responsible for their own behaviour; I believe they also have a responsibility to understand what they should do if safeguarding issues become evident during lessons.
The National Associations Strategic Partnership (NASP) is considering ways in which the current ADI Code of Practice (CoP) for driver trainers could be updated to make it clearer what driver trainers should and should not be doing. If you have any suggestions about how the code could be strengthened, please let me know. It is likely that the NASP organisations will consult with members and the wider driver trainer community later this year.
Be First to Comment