9. Having considered the documentary evidence provided, the Court finds as follows:
a. The evidence on which the Clerk’ s decisions as to over speeding seems to have been based, had been displayed on a screen in Race Control and shown to the competitors. It appears to have been part of the“ BTRC Tracking“ system.
b. The Court notes that CR 4.2.1 provides that the only data permitted in any Judicial hearing is that which is obtained from the data downloaded by the Competitor from the approved monitoring device noted in 5.18.
c. There is some doubt as to whether or not the information relied upon by the Clerk of the Course was, in fact, derived from a device or devices approved by BARC, the Organisers of Championship as required by CR 5.18.1., the BTRC website confirmed that FleetSafe were the Championship’ s official“ camera and speed monitoring partners” but no further evidence of approval has been revealed.
11. Given that the Stewards have considered the Appeals of Competitors 3 and 69 and have allowed those appeals in full, the National Court concludes that in order to ensure sporting fairness the Decisions in relation to the other six Competitors should be set aside and the penalties waived in their entirety pursuant to NCR Ch. 2App. 7 Art1.3 and Ch. 2 App2. Art. 5.1.
12. The results of the affected races must therefore be amended and republished, and the Championship Standings must be amended accordingly.
13. It is not appropriate to make any order for costs.
20th October David Munro, Chair d. In any event the data that was apparently relied on was plainly not data downloaded by the competitor as required by CR 4.2.1.
e. The National Court cannot, in these circumstances be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the data relied upon was of sufficient reliability and accuracy to establish that any of the competitors exceeded the maximum permitted speed of 160kph contrary to CR 5.18.1.
10. In each case the Court notes that the Clerk of the Course Decision states the following:
a.“ Evidence Relied Upon: Judge of Fact report”.
b. There seems to be no evidence that this information was covered by a Judge of Fact Declaration or that a 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.
Revolution Magazine 45