NATIONAL COURT between PC11 and ITC3 on the Marshall Allocation Sheet. Grateful as we are for the effort, we feel the evidence concerning this location is too unclear to be relied upon.
22. There is also a variation at 5( a), which refers to the first entry on the control card as“ 46 59”, whereas the card appears to read“ 36 59” but we take this to be a simple typing error on the submission and of no significance.
23. Leaving 5( d) aside, the evidence suggests that none of the seven remaining DSO location points governed a junction with an A-road.( a),“ 3659” and( b)“ 520617” were placed in advance of spectator point where one unclassified road joins another. 5( c)“ 545650” corresponded to a give-way junction between two unclassified roads. 5( e)“ 8348” was placed where an unclassified road joined a B-road. 5( f)“ Map Check” is located between two unclassified roads. 5( g), which reads simply“ via” without any identifying OS grid, has been correlated to PC47 on the NAM diagram( bundle p45), on an unclassified road. 5( h)“ 4650” is located at a give-way sign between 2 unclassified roads.
24. We note also that the related entries in the Competitors Plots contain only two references to the need for care when joining an A-road. One of these relates to 5( d)“ care when entering the A4244”( page 38 of the bundle). The other relates to 5( g)“ care joining A487”( page 41 of the bundle.)
25. In respect of Allegation 3( b), CAMC conceded that four sections of the route exceeded the use of A-roads for more than 200m continuously but sought to deflect some blame for this onto the Competition Authorisation Office and the Route Liaison Officer whose responsibility, they in CAMC’ s eyes, was to ensure the rules were adhered to before granting authorisation. This attitude is misconceived – it is the organiser’ s responsibility to ensure the route is compliant and the Clerk of the Course( including any named Joint Clerk of the Course) is expressly responsible( NCR Ch. 5 Art 7.1)“ for the overall conduct and control of an event in accordance with the regulations, the Organiser’ s programme and Organising Permit.”
26. In three cases, the distances concerned were 237m, 298m and 305m, but the worst case was that between ITC13B to SS13F, where 1415m of A-road were used.
27. These breaches represent a serious risk to safety, and we think there is force in Motorsport UK’ s submission that timing to the second over a section that exceeds 200m inevitably encourages higher road speeds that are inconsistent with the nature of the event and, in the case of the 1415m of ITC3B – SS13F in particular, constitutes a dangerous, non-compliant, competitive feature. It is submitted that the non-compliance is so extreme that we should annul the results of that section. In the circumstances, we see no reason why the results of all four sections should not be annulled.
28. Allegation 3( c), Competitors required to stop at controls likely to obstruct non-rally traffic, encompasses three issues, which we deal with separately, in the order in which they were addressed in the hearing.
Revolution- June 2025
Allegation 3( c) Competitors required to stop at controls likely to obstruct non-Rally traffic 29. Motorsport UK identified five route checks, RC5, RC16, RC17, RC23 and RC24 on A-roads where competitors were compelled to stop or reduce speed. Three further locations, also on A-roads, were identified where competitors were required to stop in locations likely to obstruct non-rally traffic. These were PC33, SS11F and SF13F.
30. The primary responsibility for such placements lies on the organisers. As CAMC pointed out, the volume of spectators creates serious organisational issues and neither the CAO nor the RLO are well placed to assess the placement of such controls, which may have to vary to meet conditions. Both Mr Davies and Mr Powell expressed their expectation that the onus was on the organiser to comply. CAMC’ s position was that there had been adequate room for non-Rally traffic, but they accepted the principle.
31. While there was common ground over the principle, this is the appropriate point to emphasise CAMC’ s wider concern that the pressure of regulation on volunteer organisers may be becoming insupportable and represents a threat to the future of rallying at this level. That would be a dreadful loss to the sport, which greatly values all volunteer input. CAMC believed that they had looked for marshals’ posts“ that looked safe and convenient.”
However, they had not appreciated the potential effect on public liability insurance. We have sympathy with that position. The expectations on volunteer organisers are onerous, but hopefully this issue will serve to explain the background to why they are so. We note that the reference to insurance appears in the“ fine print” of the permit. The facts of this case make it clear, in our opinion, that all volunteer organisers would benefit from guidance on the issue.
32. Mr Shaun Bee stated that for over five years he had been expressing his opinion that Clerks of the Course should be licensed. It is anticipated that in future, they will be. That would do much to assist clubs on this and other issues. Allegation 3( c) Improper Use of Route Controls 33. Motorsport UK identified at least five route checks which had been moved significantly after authorisation had been granted. These were as follows,
• RC2, sited 250m before SS1S, with no alternative route between them.
• RC6 and RC7, less than 250m apart, with no alternative route between them.
• RC8 and RC9, within 150m of SF5S, before SGW, with no alternative route to take.
• RC18 and RC19, within 150m of each other, with no alternative route, and only 500m before SS12S.
• RC23 and RC24 less than 500m apart, with no alternative route between them.
>>>>> 47