NATIONAL COURT
Sitting on 28th May Case No. J2025 / 12 Mark Heywood KC( Chair), Nicky Moffitt, Duncan McGregor
Ms Sian Woolley and Mr Nick Bamber appeared on behalf of Motorsport UK. The Court heard from the following:
• Mr Shaun Bee( Joint Clerk of the Course)
• Mr James Robertson( Steward)
• Mr Hugh Gwyn Jones( Steward)
• Mr Aled Pennant( Club Vice Chair)
• Mr Dafydd Edwards( Club Secretary)
• Mr Dion Bee( Event Secretary)
• Mr Ifor Davies( Rally Liaison Officer)
• Mr David Powell( Competition Authorisation Officer, Motorsport UK)
• Mr Jonathan Jackson( Head of Rallying, Motorsport UK)
INQUIRY Introduction
1. This is the second road rally event organised in early 2025 which has caused Motorsport UK to raise an Inquiry into apparent irregularities in its the organisation and conduct. The first being that into the Moonbeam Rally, 15-16 February 2025. The reference to the findings of that Inquiry is J2025 / 7, published in the May 2025 issue of Revolution magazine.
2. This Inquiry concerns the J. J. Brown Memorial Rally 2025, a“ Rallying – Road Timed” event organised by Caernarvonshire & Anglesey Motor Club(“ CAMC”) on 18th-19th January 2025. It is a very well-established and popular event, attracting many competitors, other participants and spectators. Unfortunately, this year the rally was the subject of a large number of complaints from members of the public.
3. We are very conscious that, although willing for the Inquiry to proceed, CAMC felt that they were given little time to consider their responses, particularly Motorsport UK’ s position statement that was served very shortly before the hearing. In light of this, we have taken particular care to consider all their written submissions, and the reasoning set out. Some specific references are made to those submissions below.
The Allegations Allegation 1“ 1. The failure by the Organiser to follow ASN Route Authorisation as a condition of issuing the ASN Permit, resulting in sections of the Event not being authorised as required by the National Competition Rules and UK legislation, in contravention of, i. Schedule 3 s1( a) Motor Vehicles( Competitions and Trials) Regulations 1969( MVCTR 1969)( Standard Conditions) ii. NCR Ch. 13 App. 1 Art. 1.2 iii. NCR Ch. 3 App. 2 Art. 1.2 iv. NCR Ch. 3 App. 2 Art. 1.3”
Revolution- June 2025
4. The importance of abiding by the ASN permit cannot be stressed enough. It is a criminal offence( Road Traffic Act 1988 s12) for any person to promote or take part in a race or trial of speed between motor vehicles on a public highway, other than in accordance with a permit granted by motorsport’ s governing body. This is a point which Stephen Daly of Conwy Borough Council made to CAMS in an email dated 16th January 2025, referring to reports of crews apparently carrying out recces on a road that was closed due to storm damage.
5. When the application for a permit is made, the applicant has to make a solemn declaration that the event will be held in accordance with the standard conditions provided for by the Motor Vehicles( Competitions and Trials) Regulations 1969 and any additional conditions imposed by Motorsport UK.
6. Obviously, the potential consequences for failure to comply with these provisions are grave. Failure can put those involved at risk, strengthen objection to future events and increase difficulty in obtaining public liability insurance, which is understandably conditional on organisers’ compliance at all times with ASN regulations and requirements, and the conditions of the policies themselves.
7. The initial application for route authorisation was submitted by Mr Shaun Bee, on 16th October 2024. The permit for the event was issued on 4th December 2024, and the E406 Route Authorisation Certificate was issued on 13th January 2025. We understand from CAMC that a process of revision then took place, resulting in final approval being granted in January 2025.
8. Mr Powell explained that the application for a permit to run this event had been lodged in the usual manner, supported by a copy of the route for sections of public highway. His concerns did not relate to the route presented for approval, but to the route set out in the Route Handout provided to the competitors at the event. Mr Powell explained that
>>>>>
45