National Court
Sitting on 20th October 2026 David Munro( Chair), David Scott, Kevin Witton
Case No. J2026-44
MOTORSPORT UK ORDERED INQUIRY – British Truck Racing Championship, Snetterton, 11th-12th July 2026
1. Due to Motorsport UK having been notified of an issue or irregularity arising in relation to the British Truck Racing Championship Event held at Snetterton on 11th-12th July 2026 the National Court was ordered to inquire into the issue pursuant to NCR Ch. 2 App. 6 Art. 1.14 and NCR Ch. 2 App. 7 Art. 9.
2. At the Championship meeting held at Snetterton on 11th-12th July 2026( Rounds 16 to 20 of the Championship) the Clerk of the Course, issued eight Decisions finding contraventions of Championship Regulation( CR) 5.18( Over Speed), each stating that the evidence relied upon was a‘ Judge of Fact report’, namely:
a. Competitor 33, Neil Yates, Race 1 b. Competitor 96, Bradley Harvey, Race 1 c. Competitor 3, Steven Powell, Race 11 d. Competitor 40, Archie Handy, Race 11 e. Competitor 89, Simon Reid, Race 11 f. Competitor 96, Bradley Harvey, Race 11 g. Competitor 6, John Powell, Race 15 h. Competitor 69, David Jenkins, Race 15
3. 10 second time penalties were issued in 6 instances, but in respect of Competitor 3 and Competitor 6, both drivers were disqualified from the results of the race.
4. Appeals against the Decisions concerning Competitor 3( Team333 Motorsport) and Competitor 69( Jenkins Motorsport) were lodged and delegated under NCR Ch. 5A App. 4 Art. 2.16 to the panel of Stewards at Donington Park, who declined to deal with them and recommended that the matter be dealt with by the original Stewards from Snetterton.
5. The original Stewards subsequently heard those Appeals on 9th September 2026 and upheld both Appeals. The Penalties imposed on Competitor 3 and Competitor 69 were quashed, the Stewards concluding that there were sufficient areas of concern as to the reliability of the data used as the basis for applying the Penalties to create doubts about its accuracy and appropriateness, and noting that provision of the information was not covered by a Judge of Fact declaration.
6. The Penalties imposed on Competitor 33, Competitor 96( Race 1), Competitor 40, Competitor 89, Competitor 96( Race 11) and Competitor 6 arose from the same data and process but were not the subject of an Appeal and accordingly remain in effect.
7. Motorsport UK takes the view that, in the interests of sporting fairness, the penalties issued using that data and which were not the subject of Appeal should also now be overturned.
8. The National Court has therefore been ordered to inquire into the following matters:
a. Whether the data relied upon for the Decisions was of sufficient reliability and accuracy to establish a contravention of CR 5.18 to the standard required by NCR Ch. 2 Art. 1.17( proof on the balance of probability, a breach not to be inferred without adequate proof), having regard to the matters identified by the Stewards in the Stewards’ Decisions;
b. Whether the information relied upon by the Clerk of the Course was covered by a Judge of Fact declaration, and whether any Judge of Fact was appointed and named in the Official Documents for the Event in accordance with NCR Ch. 5 Arts 21.1 and 21.5; and
c. Whether, the Penalties on Competitor 3 and Competitor 69 having been removed by the Stewards’ Decisions on the ground of concerns as to the reliability of the same data, sporting fairness requires that the penalties imposed on Competitor 33, Competitor 96( Race 1), Competitor 40, Competitor 89, Competitor 96( Race 11) and Competitor 6, arising from the same data and process, should be treated in like manner.
44 Revolution Magazine