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.”

46. The first question therefore, is whether there has been a breach of the law?

47. Provided the competitor or driver concerned was able to make a fully informed decision as to whether they had breached the law, they could admit the breach, irrespective of whether or not legal proceedings were taken. In which case, NCR Ch. 3 App. 2 Art 1.2 could apply.

48. However, where the alleged breach is not admitted, it could only be proved before the appropriate court of law, which in this case would be a magistrates’ court. It would be wrong for the National Court to express any view about whether an offence against the law could be proved. Our jurisdiction is limited to acting in accordance with the NCR where it has been.

49. It should also be noted that the standard of proof employed in the National Court is the balance of probabilities. Breaches of road traffic law are subject to the criminal standard of proof, i. e., proof so the tribunal is sure of guilt( previously referred to as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)

50. There is evidence before us that an accident within the meaning of s170( 1) 2 did occur, by which personal injury was caused to a person / persons other than the driver, but those are not the only issues. There is also the question of knowledge of the accident.

51. Since we do not have the power to rule on the alleged breach, we feel it would be improper to decide the facts, and inappropriate to set out the various evidence or arguments in this context. It is sufficient to record that Mr Roberts denies that he is in breach of the relevant law. 52. Ground 3( a) therefore cannot succeed at this stage.

Ground 3( b) That the Competing Crew drove recklessly, incompatible with general safety and / or in a manner likely to bring motor sport into disrepute in contravention of Ch. 13 App. 2 Art. 3.8( Driving in a manner incompatible with general safety, and / or departing from the standard of a reasonably competent driver) and Ch. 2 App. 1 Art. 1.13.( Any Competitor driving at an excessive speed or recklessly or in a manner likely to bring motor sport into disrepute or convicted of any driving offence committed during an Event may be Disqualified.)

53. In respect of Ground 3( b), the National Competition Rules apply and no precondition of proving a breach of law arises.

54. We have considered the accounts of Spectators A and B, Spectator C( another eyewitness to the incident), video footage submitted by spectators and Messrs Roberts and Price, as well as their own accounts. Both Mr Roberts and Mr Price have the benefit of considerable support within the rally community, evidenced by the written letters of support before us and Mr Ikin’ s testimonial in the course of the hearing. They are clearly experienced and well- regarded as competitors and for their wider efforts to support rallying.

55. Though Motorsport UK make the allegations in Ground( b) against Mr Roberts and Mr Price collectively, as the crew, different circumstances apply to each of them. As the driver, the primary responsibility for operating the car safely lay with Mr Roberts. Mr Price, as the co-driver, had no direct control over the speed in particular. His role is to navigate and manage the time controls. It does not follow that he was responsible for assessing outside risks and directing the driver. In fact, he made it clear that he supported Mr Roberts.

56. We find that Mr Roberts was aware of the presence of spectators on the approach to the corner, and directly ahead, where some were wearing high visibility clothing. There was a risk of harm to at least some if he was unable to control his car to avoid contact with them, but aware of that risk, he drove at excessive speed incompatible with the conditions and accordingly, with general safety.

57. Mr Roberts’ excessive speed cannot be excused, as he argues, as a critical, split-second decision. He did not have to react to a hazard in the road, he was unable to control the car without leaving the road. He had not left sufficient margin to deal with the lack of grip on the road and was, as we find, determined to drive as quickly as he could. 58. While the offence under NCR Ch. 2 App. 1 Art. 1.13 is made out on our findings that Mr Roberts drove at excessive speed and / or recklessly. It is not necessary to prove all the elements including that Mr Roberts drove in a manner likely to bring motorsport into disrepute. It cannot be the case that any driving resulting in an accident brings motorsport, rather than the individual, into disrepute. No conclusions can be drawn from Mr Roberts’ driving on without stopping, since that depends on proof of the road traffic offence. We are not satisfied that Mr Roberts drove in a manner likely to bring motorsport into disrepute.

59. Though a member of the crew of car number 4, Mr Price cannot be held responsible for the driving of the car. We are not satisfied that any breach of the NCR can be established in his case.

Summary of Findings and Associated Penalties

60. In respect of the Organisers. the Court finds Ground 1( b) proved. Telford Auto Club is prohibited from obtaining a Motorsport UK permit to organise a Rallying-Road Timed event until 1st January 2028. The operation of that prohibition will be partly suspended. It will operate until 31st December 2026. Thereafter, the prohibition will be suspended until 31st December 2027. Any further breach of the National Competition Rules in that period of suspension is to be referred by Motorsport UK to the National Court for its consideration.

61. We find Ground 1( c) proved, but as set out above, it is an example of the effect of 1( b) and we have taken it into account as such, therefore we impose no separate penalty.

46

Revolution- May 2025