Sitting on 28th May Case No. J2025 / 10 Mark Heywood KC( Chair), Nicky Moffitt, Duncan McGregor

Ms Sian Woolley and Mr Nick Bamber appeared on behalf of Motorsport UK. Mr Hayes appeared with his father by video link.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – Mr Harry Hamish Hayes

1. Harry Hamish Hayes began competing in 2024. Since then, he has“ totted” up 12 penalty points on his competition licence, as set out below. Accordingly, he appears before us to answer Motorsport UK’ s disciplinary summons.

Event Date Breach Points

BRSCC AIRTEC Motorsport Fiesta ST240 Championship- Snetterton 300( Race 10)

BRSCC AIRTEC Motorsport Fiesta ST240 Championship- Croft

BRSCC AIRTEC Motorsport Fiesta ST240 Championship- Silverstone National( Race 3)

BRSCC AIRTEC Motorsport Fiesta ST240 Championship- Snetterton 300( Race 13)

2. Motorsport UK accept that Mr Hayes is inexperienced, but nevertheless, he must be expected to comply with the regulations and conduct himself on track as all drivers should.

3. Mr Hayes competition licence has been suspended since the issue of the summons to answer these proceedings, on 24th April 2025.

4. We direct that his licence is to remain suspended until Mr Hayes has satisfactorily completed, at his own expense, a course of re-education supervised by an ARDS instructor, independent of any professional relationship with Mr Hayes, and qualified to Grade A or S. In making that order we note that it has the support of Motorsport UK.

5. In view of the fact that Mr Hayes has taken on the financial responsibility for repairing damage caused to his teammate’ s car, and the expense of complying with this penalty, we make no order as to costs.

Mark Heywood KC, Chair 28th May 2025

19 May 2024

13 July 2024

17 August 2024

06 April 2025

2024 C1.1.6 Contravention of flag / light signals( Now Ch. 2 App. 1 Art. 1.14)

2024 C1.1.6( Now Ch. 2 App. 1 Art. 1.14)

2024 Q12.21.4( Now Ch. 12. App. 7 Art. 1.8)

Ch. 12 App. 7 Art. 1.8

2

4

3

3

Sitting on 15th May Case No. J2025 / 11 David Munro( Chair), David Scott, Kevin Witton

TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY APPEAL

1. The National Court has considered the technical eligibility appeal of X, who was the driver of a Ginetta Junior G40, competition number Y, which was entered by MDD Racing in Round 1 of the Ginetta Junior Championship at Donington Park Circuit on 5th April 2025.

2. Prior to the race, MDD Racing had applied tape to the seams between the rear bodywork and the boot panel of the car.

3. The tape was plainly visible, and its placement led to a Scrutineer’ s Non-Compliance Report, signed by an Eligibility Scrutineer, Mr Clive Greves, being issued at 18:06 hrs.

4. The Clerk of the Course, Paul Lovitt, after a hearing, accepted that Car Y did not comply with the Championship Regulations of the Championship in that the tape covering the boot apertures breached Supplementary Regulations 5.6.3, which states“… It is not permitted to cover bodywork apertures and joint lines with adhesive tapes unless authorised by the Eligibility Scrutineer as a short-term repair.” Accordingly, under National Competition Rules Ch2. App 8, Art 2.1( a) &( b), the vehicle was ineligible and was disqualified from the results of the race. 5. It is against that decision that this appeal is brought. 6. There is a clear conflict in the evidence, given that Mr Greves is adamant that no consent was given in accordance with Supplementary Regulations 5.6.3, and the Team Principal, Mr Scott McKenna, asserts that he had a conversation with Mr Greves in which he asked,“ Can I place some tape on the boot lining of the car Y to secure the bodywork until the team can make a proper modification after the race?”

7. The Eligibility Scrutineer denies that this conversation took place, and in any event, on Mr McKenna’ s account, he seems to assert the“ boot lining”, presumably an internal component, required seaming.

8. Mr McKenna and his team mechanic, Mr Robinson, also maintain that an unidentified member of the scrutineering team looked at the car and agreed that the placement of the tape was“ fine”.

9. The Court, sitting as an EAP, is not satisfied that consent was given as required by Supplementary Regulations 5.6.3 for the following reasons:

• The Regulations permit a‘ short-term repair’ if authorised by the Eligibility Scrutineer, but there is no suggestion in the present case that there had been any damage to a body panel which required a repair— rather, the tape was affixed over a seam or join which was simply misaligned.

50

Revolution- June 2025