34. The purpose of a route check is defined in NCR Ch. 13 App. 5 Art. 3. It is to prove a competitor’ s adherence to the correct route.

35. Mr Shaun Bee accepted this but added“ I can’ t see anything saying I wasn’ t allowed to, but OK.” He enlarged upon this, explaining that this is how it had been done every time; they were on non-speed sections, and spreading the checks out reduces congestion.

36. In our view, the use of route controls other than as provided for in the NCR cannot be condoned. The impact on congestion is something to be considered in planning the route, not to be managed by using controls for a purpose outside their function. Allegation 4“ 4. That the standard section from ITC13B to SS13F used a length of A-class road timed to the second: a. exceeding 200m( total over 1 mile continuous) b. Included a road with a 20mph speed limit in contravention of Ch. 13 App. 4 Art. 4.3.” 37. In respect of( a), the magnitude of the breach speaks for itself.

38. In respect of( b), it is significant to note that the NCR expressly forbids the use of a road with a 30-mph or 40- mph speed limit without the express permission of the RLO.

39. Mr Shaun Bee argued that the route did not join a 20mph section of the A498 and there were no speed signs at the junction. He produced as support a short video clip recorded in the week before the hearing, showing the junction and, a short distance to the left in the direction of SS13F and the village of Beddgelert, a 20-mph speed limit sign.

40. We are not persuaded by this argument. The NCR clearly refers to the use of a road that is subject to a limit. It would not matter if the road was joined at a point where a higher speed limit was in force; the NCR is contravened when the speed-restricted part of such a road is included. Part of this road, between ITC13B and SS13F, subject to a 20-mph limit was included.

41. We are conscious of the point made in CAMC’ s written submission, that the NCR refers to speed limits that do not include the 20-mph limits introduced in Wales in September 2023. In our opinion, there could be no logical basis for arguing that a prohibition on using a road with a 30-mph limit did not implicitly prohibit use of a road with a lower limit than that, but as this is likely to be a matter of importance in Welsh rallying, we recommend Motorsport UK considers suitable amendments to the NCR in future. Allegation 5“ 5. That Organiser failed to complete adequate public relations work including, but not limited to: a. Failure to contact the local Police Control Room before the Event( Ch. 13 App. 1 Art. 6.3) b. Failure to contact the Police Control Room to notify them of blocked roads due to incidents in the running of the Event.

48 c. Failure to contact the Police Control Room to notify them of reroutes into areas that had not had PR carried out.” 42. Mr Shaun Bee stated, and we accept, that the CAMC has contacted the relevant police control rooms at every previous event they have run and routinely call the police to obtain an incident number, as required. On this occasion, however, he explained that the requirement had simply been forgotten. Mr Bee explained that despite the control room not having been contacted, there was police presence on the rally, and he had spoken to that officer both on and after the rally. In the exchanges between Motorsport UK and Mr Shaun Bee, it became apparent that the purpose of a identifying a single point of contact with the police was readily accepted, the CAMC( not simply Mr Bee himself) assumed the police operate with easier communication than is the case, and while they may have had good contact with an officer present on the event, that was no substitute for the failure, as unintentional as that had been.

43. We are concerned, firstly that against such a history of compliance, inadvertent forgetfulness should occur over such an important requirement and secondly that the failure persisted after an accident caused a road blockage and necessitated re-routing into areas that had not been prepared.

44. The CAMC criticised the way in which Motorsport UK had set out the particulars of their allegation. While accepting that they had failed to contact the local Police Control Room before the event as alleged at 5( a), they argued, correctly, that the specific failures set out at allegations 5( b) and 5( c) do not appear in the NCR. In response, Mr Powell cited the specific guidance provided to organisers as part of the permit process.

45. The principles of the regulations and guidance were obviously understood and welcomed by CAMC, who obviously support the necessity to establish and be able to demonstrate robust safety, emergency preparedness and openness in order to secure the continued viability of their sport, but we cannot accept the suggestion that the system is unduly bureaucratic. Again, we recognise the administrative burden on volunteer organisers but are bound to recall Mr Shaun Bee’ s evidence that these failures concerning contact with the police were an inadvertent one-off, set against years of satisfactory compliance, and while the guidance may not have been readily accessible on Motorsport UK’ s website resource centre( as the Club criticised), it was already available on their own.

46. During the rally, the failure to notify the local Police Control Room prior to the rally resulted in the predictable consequences when, as a result of an accident involving a competitor’ s car blocked the route to following competitors. The police were left unaware of the rally and its route, and the disturbance led to numerous complaints which, in the circumstances may well be justified and, if so, the responsibility of the CAMC’ s failures.

Revolution- June 2025