NATIONAL COURT
Sitting on 9th July 2025 Case No. J2025 / 20 Guy Spollen( Chair), Dennis Carter, David Scott
Mr Nick Bamber and Ms Sian Woolley appeared on behalf of Motorsport UK. Adam Shepherd appeared before the Court represented by Ms Sarah Franklin.
Sporting Appeal— Adam Shepherd
1. This matter came before Chairman Mark Heywood KC on 27th June 2025. Mr Shepherd had applied to this court to appeal against the decisions of the Stewards of the Event at Croft on 15th June 2025 to reject his appeal to them and uphold the decision of the Clerk of the Course that he was in breach of NCR Ch. 12 App. 7 Art. 1.8 causing a collision, repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack of control over the car concerned and his disqualification from the results of the race pursuant to NCR Ch. 2 App. 2 Art 1( e).
2. Chairman Mark Heywood KC considered that there was an arguable case that a gross miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the penalty was wholly inappropriate. Accordingly, this court will consider Adam Shepherd’ s appeal and the facts of this matter.
3. Adam Shepherd is a very experienced and successful motorsport competitor, who prior to this incident had maintained a clean competition licence. For 2025 he is a registered competitor in the TCR UK Championship. With race no. 117 he was competing in this championship at the Croft circuit during the weekend of 14th and 15th June 2025. During the second TCR race( Race 8) there was a“ front to back” collision on lap 6 between the appellant’ s car no. 117 and car no. 100 driven by a Steve Laidlaw. Although the contact was comparatively light, Steve Laidlaw driving the leading car lost control and spun off circuit, eventually finishing in 10th position. The appellant went on to win the race.
4. After the race, the Clerk of the Course reviewed the incident and held, after reviewing the onboard footage from car no. 117 and car no. 100 and interviewing both drivers, that Mr Shepherd was at fault. The appellant received a penalty of disqualification from the race and 4 penalty points. The appellant appealed this decision to the Stewards who viewed the onboard footage from both cars, the live stream footage, telemetry provided by the appellant and the explanation from both drivers. The Stewards upheld the Clerk of the Course’ s decision. It has to be said that neither the Clerk of the Course nor the Stewards adequately explained in their reports how they had reached their decisions.
5. The court had the advantage of hearing evidence from Mr Salmon who was the Deputy Clerk of the meeting as well as from the appellant. Mr Salmon in the course of his evidence: a) Conceded that it is not easy for officials to ensure consistency of penalties. b) Maintained that the appellant had been disqualified because of serious errors of driving on his part.
Revolution- August 2025
6. The appellant gave detailed evidence before the course and explained how and why the incident had in his opinion occurred. The court permitted him to play the video footage available and to provide a running commentary on all video footage he and his representation considered relevant.
7. Having heard the appellant’ s explanation the court noted that: a) The appellant was and is justifiably proud of his racing record and reputation for racing hard but fair. b) In Race 8 he started in 10th position and quickly elevated himself to position 2 without any issues or incidents. c) Immediately prior to the incident complained of car no. 100 had hit the tyre stack at the chicane before locking up into Tower Ben. d) The appellant when giving evidence before the court conceded that: I. Prior to the inter car contact car no. 100 was moving left to right and wandering somewhat and could have sustained damage in the collision with the tyre stack. II. He had found it“ difficult to know what was going on” and the circumstances were unpredictable. III. Upon reflection it may have been more prudent to fall back as it was“ he caught me out”. IV. The driver Steve Laidlaw was in any event unpredictable. e) Despite the uncertainties and unpredictability of movement of Laidlaw’ s car no. 100, the appellant’ s speed it appears was in fact increasing immediately prior to impact from 94 to 99 mph.
8. Despite the best efforts of Ms Franklin to suggest that the court was dealing with a“ racing incident”, the court did not agree. The court considered this to be a serious error of judgment on the part of the appellant who collided“ back to front” with car no. 100 at high speed. The appellant in all the circumstances should have been more cautious, fallen back and provided more space between his own car and car no. 100. The court did not consider the penalty of disqualification with 4 penalty points to be unreasonable or inconsistent with the penalties imposed for this type of offence. Neither did it feel the penalty imposed was inconsistent with penalties imposed on other competitors and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant was directed to pay £ 500 towards the costs of this unsuccessful appeal.
Guy Spollen, Chair 9th July 2025
>>>>> 35