Also see;
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp195_Criminal_Liability_responses.pdf
1.287 “As it is a civil penalty the normal requirements in relation to fair trials and so forth do not apply”
The above breaches British Justice and also Article 6 of the European Communities Human Rights (International Transport Roth v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 158). Further, the Court decided that the provision actually breached Article 6. It was unfair as it involved a reversal of the burden of proof, prejudicing the presumption of innocence. (It is to be noted that the Government response to Roth was to redraft the provision, which now appears in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Sch 8. As, while it permits mitigation of penalties, the new provision preserves the reversed burden of proof, liability decided by the Secretary of State, substantial penalties, and little modified enforcement provisions, it seems likely that it remains in breach of Article 6.)
Should civil sanction be applied to driving instructor?
Driving instructors by the very nature of the profession are normally small businesses many single man schools of motoring. In a statement made by Rt Hon. Michael Fallon, Minister of State for Business and Enterprise; Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the 8 November 2012.
“Powers to impose Fixed Monetary Penalties, Variable Monetary Penalties and Restoration Notices will, as a general rule, only be granted where their used is restricted to undertakings with more than 250 employees”
So if this is correct civil sanctions could not be imposed on driving instructors who are self employed. Maybe the AA/BSM would fall in the 250 employees’ category even if none of these are driving instructors.