NATIONAL COURT
B.“ Rod Taylor found a 12in plastic rule. I offered up the rule to show that the transponder was not within the range of the measurements listed in the gold book.( not a definitive measurement).” b) At no time was Keith Ramsbottom asked to complete any paperwork for this matter. c) Rod Taylor in his statement of 6th November 2025 and confirmed orally before the Inquiry expressed the view that whilst compiling his stewards’ report he had:“… realised that the stewards’ panel should maybe have rejected the Right of Review as the Protest was denied on the grounds that it was not properly constituted and nothing to do with new evidence.”
15. Motorsport UK having ordered this Inquiry have provided a comprehensive position statement in which a series of questions have been submitted for consideration and answer in so far as the same is possible.
16. Issue One – The Lack of a“ Non-Compliance Report”
There is no dispute that there was no valid compliance report by the technical officials in accordance with NCR Ch. 2 App. 8 Art. 1.3 & Art. 1.4 required for the purposes of an Eligibility Decision.
The National Court confirms that:
a) The Decisions of the Stewards to uphold both the Right of Review and Decision 68 constitute Judicial Eligibility Decisions for the purposes of NCR Ch. 2 App. 8 Art. 1.1. b) A Judicial Eligibility Decision can only be made following: A. A Judicial Hearing arising from a Non-Compliance Report; or B. A valid Protest and consequential Non-Compliance Report. c) Both routes require a valid Non-Compliance Report signed by the relevant Technical Officials, specifying the alleged breach and complying with the other provisions of NCR Ch. 2 App. 8 Art. 1.4. d) The failure to obtain a valid Non-Compliance Report prior to making their decision renders the Judicial Eligibility Decision( s) of the Stewards in both the Right of Review and Decision 68 invalid.
17. Issue Two – Validity of Protest
Motorsport UK has specifically asked the National Court to consider if the Protest brought by Sam Pollitt Racing was brought at the earlier possible time. NCR Ch. 2 App. 9
Revolution- December 2025
Art. 1.2 provides that a Protest must be brought“ at the earliest possible time that an alleged breach” has come to the Protestor’ s attention; it is not permissible to“ have any knowledge or suspicion of actual or potential breach of the Regulations and then to wait and see what happens during the Competition”. Art. 1.2 further confirms that any such action will be deemed an act of“ bad faith” for the purposes of NCR Ch. 2 App. 9 Art. 1.1.
18. From the available evidence it is quite clear that: a) Photographs showing the transponder positioning of Competitor 183’ s Kart were taken prior to the start of the Final Race. b) The purpose of taking such photographs was to provide evidence of the positioning of the transponder after the race should it be tactically beneficial to protest the positioning of the transponder. c) A person producing such photographs, waiting to see the results of the competition and subsequently filing a Protest must be in breach of NCR Ch. 2. App. 9 Art 1.2. d) Sam Pollitt before the start of the Race was told that: A. One of the karts in the race had its transponder in the wrong place and the driver was identified as X. B. Photographs had been taken with a view to a possible Protest. e) Sam Pollitt did not protest at the earliest possible time as he waited until after the race had concluded.
19. This Inquiry is further asked to rule if the Stewards were correct to reject the Protest filed by Sam Pollitt Racing. As indicated at paragraphs 9 and 10 above the Protest document did not comply with the strict requirements of NCR Ch. 2 App. 9 Art 1.10. Although the issue is properly identified as the transponder height on Kart 183 there are no: a) Detailed reasons provided or reference made to relevant Regulations. b) Reference to the identity of any witnesses which was clearly relevant in this instance.
20. While arguably somewhat harsh this Inquiry concludes that the Stewards were acting correctly in rejecting the original Protest. Furthermore, it is the view of the Inquiry that it was not permissible for the Stewards to overturn their Rejection of the Protest in the subsequent Review as: a) The original Protest was rejected for failing to comply with the strict procedural requirements of NCR Ch. 2 App. 9 Art. 1.10.
>>>>> 59