national court
MOTOR SPORTS COUNCIL NATIONAL COURT SITTING TUESDAY 30TH SEPTEMBER 2014 Tony Scott Andrews (Chairman) Mike Harris Rick Smith CASE No J2014/18 H Chapman J2014/19 J Tanner J2014/20 D Sleigh There are three separate Eligibility Appeals before the National Court, each arising from the same event, on the same facts and submitted in similar terms. It would therefore be expedient for the Court, having considered all three matters to issue but one Judgement. The Court trusts that the Appellants Hannah Chapman, David Sleigh and Joe Tanner will find that acceptable. The Appeals arise out of an event at Knockhill on the 17th August 2014 at which three of the races formed part of the Scottish Mini Cooper Cup 2014. At the conclusion of the first such race, the Clerk of the Course received a Non-Compliance Report from the Technical Commissioner in respect of six cars, the handbrake lever of each of which had been modified by the fitment of a short extension. Each of the six competitors duly attended before the Clerk and each was excluded from the results of Race 1. Five of those competitors sought to Appeal against the Clerk’s decision but because of procedural irregularities along the way, only three now come before the Court. The facts are that certain drivers, possibly of lesser height than their fellow competitors, have positioned their seats further forward in order to reach the steering wheel and pedals. One result of so doing is that once strapped into a race seat with the usual side supports, it is extremely difficult to reach back to operate the handbrake. It was for this reason that as long ago as 2011 one of the Appellants, David Sleigh fitted a small extension to the handbrake levers of his cars. He did so with the permission of the Technical Delegate who granted permission because the start at Knockhill is on an incline and clearly difficulties could arise for any driver unable to operate a handbrake. It is said that this small extension has been clearly visible to Scrutineers since that time and has obviously been in full view of other competitors as many have
adopted the same modification. Having been excluded from Race 1 the question arose as to how to deal with the issue for the next two races to be held that day. The Technical Commissioner seemingly considered the matter and having consulted both the Clerk and the Stewards it was determined that the handbrake extension was permissible on grounds of safety and could be used in Race 2. It was after Race 2 that representatives of the Scottish Motor Racing Club intervened, although on what basis is unclear. They disagreed with the view of the Series’ own Technical Delegate. The result of this intervention, however, was that competitors using an extended handbrake were required to remove it prior to the start of Race 3, the race being put back in the programme to facilitate the change. What comes before this Court therefore are simply Appeals against the exclusions from Race 1. No attempt has been made to disturb the results of Race 2 and there is no evidence from Scrutineers as to who had or had not effected a change of handbrake for that race. This Court will confine itself therefore to dealing with Race 1 only. The relevant Technical Regulations, as pointed out by the SMRC, permit the replacement of the driver’s seat with a competition alternative together with the ability to add extensions to the throttle, brake and clutch pedals “to aid foot control”. The braking system must remain standard and the regulations contain the customary provision to the effect that if something is not specifically permitted to be done then it should not be done. There is nothing in the Regulations which permit an extension to be added to the handbrake and on that basis therefore this Court must reject each Appeal. The Court does so, however, with some reluctance and has considerable sympathy with the competitors who believed that the modification which they had made was permitted by the Technical Delegate, which indeed it had been. The Court believes that the Technical Delegate had good reason to consider such a modification to be desirable but, unfortunately for these Appellants, the Court cannot sanction Technical Regulations being amended
at will by an official. The Scottish Mini Cooper Cup is registered as such with the MSA and, as such, MSA General Regulation D11.1.3 applies. This means that after issue of a Championship Permit, Technical Regulations can be amended only with permission of the MSA and then only if all registered Championship competitors agree in writing to the proposed amendment. Unfortunately this was not done in this case and it cannot be right that amendments are agreed with some competitors and potentially not brought to the attention of others. The Court would suggest that if, as the Technical Delegate believes such an amendment is desirable for safety reasons, application should be made to the MSA for the remainder of 2014 or that future Regulations contain provision for such an amendment. In all the circumstances of these particular cases, although the Court finds itself unable to allow the Appeals, it will, exceptionally, order that each Appeal fee be returned. TONY SCOTT ANDREWS CHAIRMAN
SITTING TUESDAY 11th NOVEMBER 2014 David Munro (Chairman) Mike Harris Rick Smith CASE No J2014/22 Lee Shellard and Michael Bowle Michael Bowle and Lee Shellard were the crew of a silver Subaru Impreza, competition number 33 at the Motor Sport Carnival – Boconnoc on 27th July 2014. This was a National B Single Venue Stage Rally. Following an accident at the event it was alleged that both competitors were guilty of breaching the following regulations: 1. C1.1.5 2. R25.6.2 and 3. R25.9.1 The matter was then referred to the MSC National Court under Regulation C8.1 to consider the alleged breaches. Mr Bowle and Mr Shellard appeared
before the Court and Mr Bowle was represented by Mr Marland of Counsel. Both competitors admitted the breach of Regulations C1.1.5 and R25.6.2 but denied that there had been any breach of R25.9.1. The National Court therefore considered whether or not a breach of General Regulation R25.9.1 had occurred. Having heard evidence from Mr Lee Shellard and Mr Michael Bowle and having considered the submissions made on behalf of both competitors by Mr Marland, the Court finds as follows: 1. That notes were made by Mr Shellard who described them as “safety notes”. 2. Whether or not they amounted to pace notes, the Court is satisfied that they were a means of giving a competitor advice relating to the traversing of a Special Stage. 3. R25.9.1 prohibits the use, provision, or simple possession of such information unless R25.9.2 applies. 4. The Court is not satisfied that the notes were compiled in the way described by either competitor and concludes that the crew of Car No 33 were in breach of R25.9.1. During stage 2 of the event, as a result of poor communication between the crew – who were competing in only their third such event – the vehicle was driven in the wrong direction as a result of which it was in collision with a subsequent competitor. This was a serious incident in which substantial injuries were sustained by the crews in both cars. Special Stage 2 had to be abandoned and Stages 3 and 4 were cancelled whilst the incident was dealt with. The Court notes that both Mr Bowle and Mr Shellard have admitted that the vehicle was driven in the wrong direction during stage 2 of the event, contrary to R25.6.2 and that the manner in which it was driven was therefore incompatible with general safety, contrary to General Regulation C1.1.5. The Court concludes that, as noted above, poor communication played a major part in the vehicle being driven in the wrong direction and that the inexperience of the crew – who had unwisely compiled their own inadequate notes relating to the traversing of the stage also contributed to what occurred.
Spring 2015 www.msauk.org 53
053-058 National court GC DS.indd 1
13/03/2015 10:46