46 a common-sense approach to compliance is taken, and where appropriate, a small but appropriate tolerance would generally be acceptable, unless it appeared to demonstrate an attempt to circumvent the intended limitations of the permit.

9. Mr Powell stated that, had the route been presented for approval in this form, he would have rejected possibly as many as four of the controls, but chief among his concerns were, a.

b.

c.

Neutral Section SS1F to SS2S, which was 0.55 miles shorter than the authorised mileage of two miles MVCTR, and thus under the minimum 2-mile distance. Standard Section SS2S to ITC2A, which was 0.4 miles longer than the authorised 2.5 miles, resulting in the average speed increasing to above the maximum permitted 30mph and outside any acceptable tolerance. Standard Section( to the second) SS9S to SSF9, which was 0.4 miles longer than the authorised four miles, resulting in a further increase in average speed, but a more serious one, because competitors would have to drive faster to avoid or reduce time penalties in this‘ timed to the second’ section.

10. In their written response, CAMC disputed two aspects of this allegation. Firstly, they asserted their belief that they had not knowingly broken the Motor Vehicles( Competitions and Trials) Regulations 1969. Secondly, they suggested that“ the quoted NCR relates to breaches of the regulations by Competitors. Therefore, once again your statement in our opinion is factually incorrect.”

11. The issue of the quoted NCR can be dealt with briefly, since it is mistaken. The text quoted by CAMC in their written submission,“ Competitions taking place on the Public Highway must conform with the laws of the country in which they take place. Any breach of such laws by a Competitor or Driver during a Competition shall be a breach of these Regulations and may be dealt with accordingly”, is the text of NCR Ch. 3, App. 2, Art. 1.2, not Ch. 13, App. 1 Art 1.2.

12. Mr Shaun Bee admitted that they had plotted SS9F incorrectly and the club“ held their hands up” to the mistake. No explanation was put forward as to how the mistake occurred. No further explanations were offered in respect of Neutral Section SS1F to SS2S or Standard Section SS2S to ITC2A.

13. We are satisfied that the breaches are proved. Though in isolation, we would not, on balance, have found that these represent an attempt to circumvent the intended limitations of the permit, they are the first example of what was to become a consistent theme. Allegation 2“ 2. That the actions by the Organiser at a. above inhibited the ASN’ s ability to properly consider the nature and suitability of the actual route utilised( s. 11( d) MVCTR 1969).” 14. In their written submission, CAMC set out their uncertainty as to what was meant by this allegation, their being, as can be seen from the direct quote in the heading, no paragraph or sub paragraph“( a) above.”

15. Though inaccurate and confusing, in context the reference is clearly to the preceding paragraph of the Notice of Inquiry. For the reasons set out under Allegation 1, we are satisfied that this too is proved. Nevertheless, we feel this ground does no more than to re-state the effect that failure to comply with the formalities has on the governing body. As we have set out, the wider seriousness of failure to comply with the formalities, particularly the potential to prejudice insurance cover speaks for itself.

16. The Court notes that a similar error appeared on the Notice of Inquiry into the Moonbeam Rally. It may be, therefore, that a document template contains an error. We urge Motorsport UK to check and make any necessary correction to avoid the difficulty expressed by CAMC arising in future. Allegation 3“ 3. That the use and siting of controls on A-class roads( and which were standard sections timed to the second) were not in accordance with the RA and specifically in contravention of: a. NCR Ch. 13 App. 4 Art. 4.1. b( Competitors joining A-class roads with no manned control) b. NCR Ch. 13 App. 4 Art. 4.1. c( Use of A-class roads for more than 200m continuously) c. NCR Ch. 13 App. 2 Art. 2.18( Competitors required to stop at controls likely to obstruct non-Rally traffic).” 17. In respect of 3( a), NCR Ch. 13 App. 4 Art. 4.1. b provides that where a Standard Section is timed to the second, it must not join or cross any A-class road except where there is a manned control at which competitors must stop at the junction.

18. Motorsport UK identified seven road junctions, listed( a) to( g), where the route led onto the A4244, the A5T, the A470T, the A496, the A498 and A487 without a manned control. In one of the two junctions with the A498, a Driving Standards Observer( DSO) was placed on an adjacent junction with two minor roads, but not the A-road.

19. CAMC responded that all points of entry were manned by a Driving Standards Observer( DSO), all of whom were named on the official noticeboard in accordance with regulations. The DSO documentation was not available on the day of the Inquiry and Motorsport UK undertook to review all the material and make further written submissions.

20. As a result of that review, we have been provided with a specimen DSO Card,( reflective of all the submitted cards) which records eight grid square references, the locations of which Motorsport UK have cross referenced using other material in the bundle. These are listed as 5( a) to( h) in Motorsport UK’ s further submission.

21. Of these, 5( d) refers to an entry that is very unclear. The entry on the card reads“ 573 375”, but Motorsport UK has been unable to correlate that to the Competitor’ s Plots, unless it refers to“ 753 573.25”, which relates to a point

Revolution- June 2025