Not so Fun Cup. Idiot decides to drive on to the live track.

[tapkaJohnD]

Rod,
I hope that you and your fellow competitors will not let your rightful wrath over come the rather obvious point that tjis manis a "man of straw". He will have no assets and little income. It would be futile as well as expensive, however satisfying, to sue him for £200,000. Better let the Police formulate some punitive penalty, that would have an impact on him. I have no idea if a prison sentence would be possible - if convicted, of course - but that would impact his position in the job market,for instance.

JOhn

[anonymous-user]

tenpenceshort said:

I doubt a private track is a Public Place in the meaning required by the RTA. Nor is it a road. Then you would probably have issues proving the driving fell far below as per the requirements of the offence. I doubt simply being on the track would be sufficient.

The official definition is as follows

"The expression 'on a road or other public place' is employed frequently in Road Traffic legislation, for example, in the drafting of moving traffic offences at sections 1-6 RTA. A public place is a place to which the public, or part thereof, have access."

The relevant amendment section of the RTA

"
Disapplication of sections 1 to 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for authorised motoring events.
.
After section 13 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—

“13A

Disapplication of sections 1 to 3 for authorised motoring events.
.

(1)

A person shall not be guilty of an offence under sections 1, 2 or 3 of this Act by virtue of driving a vehicle in a public place other than a road if he shows that he was driving in accordance with an authorisation for a motoring event given under regulations made by the Secretary of State."


A race circuit is a public place, which is why there was an exemption added to the legislation for licenced competitors when the RTA was written. The CPS are more than capable of bringing a case under the RTA for anyone driving any vehicle pretty much anywhere in the UK. If any member of the public has access then its covered under the RTA.

[tenpenceshort]

An enclosed race track such as Brands Hatch is not a public place or a road, so Dangerous Driving does not apply. Access to the track is restricted and only available to a class of persons (race drivers or those authorised to enter the track) sufficiently narrow that it cannot be considered a public place.

Also, you should read s.13a in conjunction with sections 12 and 13- the exemptions to s.1, 2 and 3 apply to motoring events on 'public ways' that have been allowed by specific government regulation. This event at Brands does not apply to sections 12, 13 or 13a.

The CPS guidance you quote above has references to Wilkinsons- you should read them, if you have access.

Finally, if you are still not convinced, you will note that s.13a gives exemption from sections 1 (death by dangerous), 2 (Dangerous) and 3 (careless and inconsiderate). It does not give an exemption from s.143 (requirement to have insurance on a road or other public place). If you are right, and Brands circuit is a public place for the purposes of the act, then every person who drives a vehicle on the track, road registered or not, must have in place at least third party insurance, otherwise they are committing an offence and would be liable for a minimum of 6 penalty points.

We know that this is not the case.

Edited by tenpenceshort on Tuesday 1st July 22:26

[bmwguy]

tenpenceshort said:

An enclosed race track such as Brands Hatch is not a public place or a road, so Dangerous Driving does not apply. Access to the track is restricted and only available to a class of persons (race drivers or those authorised to enter the track) sufficiently narrow that it cannot be considered a public place.

Also, you should read s.13a in conjunction with sections 12 and 13- the exemptions to s.1, 2 and 3 apply to motoring events on 'public ways' that have been allowed by specific government regulation. This event at Brands does not apply to sections 12, 13 or 13a.

The CPS guidance you quote above has references to Wilkinsons- you should read them, if you have access.

Finally, if you are still not convinced, you will note that s.13a gives exemption from sections 1 (death by dangerous), 2 (Dangerous) and 3 (careless and inconsiderate). It does not give an exemption from s.143 (requirement to have insurance on a road or other public place). If you are right, and Brands circuit is a public place for the purposes of the act, then every person who drives a vehicle on the track, road registered or not, must have in place at least third party insurance, otherwise they are committing an offence and would be liable for a minimum of 6 penalty points.

We know that this is not the case.

Edited by tenpenceshort on Tuesday 1st July 22:26

So why is there an exemption for authorised motor sport events in the RTA at all? If what you say is right you can't be prosecuted under the RTA even if the race is not MSA authorised!

.....and btw.....don't you think the idiot should be prosecuted?

[ADEuk]

tapkaJohnD said:

Rod,
I hope that you and your fellow competitors will not let your rightful wrath over come the rather obvious point that tjis manis a "man of straw". He will have no assets and little income. It would be futile as well as expensive, however satisfying, to sue him for £200,000. Better let the Police formulate some punitive penalty, that would have an impact on him. I have no idea if a prison sentence would be possible - if convicted, of course - but that would impact his position in the job market,for instance.

JOhn

Indeed, if anyone should be sued it should be the circuit for allowing this idiot access to a live race track.

[bmwguy]

ADEuk said:

Indeed, if anyone should be sued it should be the circuit for allowing this idiot access to a live race track.

Yes.....it's the circuits fault! The idiot had no choice but to drive onto the circuit when he realised it was possible. You really can't blame him at all.

[tenpenceshort]

bmwguy said:

So why is there an exemption for authorised motor sport events in the RTA at all? If what you say is right you can't be prosecuted under the RTA even if the race is not MSA authorised!

.....and btw.....don't you think the idiot should be prosecuted?

It is to cover events in places that would normally be considered public places, such as fields. If you read the box on p63 of the 2014 MSA Handbook you will see that. You will also note the MSA do not envisage enclosed stadiums being considered public places.i

[andyps]

tenpenceshort said:

It is to cover events in places that would normally be considered public places, such as fields. If you read the box on p63 of the 2014 MSA Handbook you will see that. You will also note the MSA do not envisage enclosed stadiums being considered public places.i

I'm no legal expert but do remember that when there were proposals which may be the law you are relating to it was recognised that they would effectively outlaw any form of racing as the initial white paper did include race circuits and similar. The law was approved but exemptions were put in place to allow licensed motor sport to continue.

[tenpenceshort]

The question is; is the enclosed race track at Brands Hatch a public place as requires by the Road Traffic Act? The spectator areas and public access roads almost certainly are public places. Any camping fields almost certainly are. The track itself, restricted as it is to access by a very narrow group of competitors, is not. It does not automatically become a public place by virtue of some specific members of the public being allowed on it- it must be a wide enough group to be considered generally public.

The MSA themselves acknowledge in the blue book that tracks in 'stadiums' are not public places. As has been pointed out, if they were, anyone driving any car on them would need insurance as per the RTA. Does Lewis Hamilton have to get RTA insurance for his racing on the circuit at Silverstone this weekend?

[Scuffers]

tenpenceshort said:

Does Lewis Hamilton have to get RTA insurance for his racing on the circuit at Silverstone this weekend?

to a point yes

MSA will have insurance in place for the GP as they do for all MSA sanctioned race meetings.

/wider point/

I can't believe all the sudo-legal mumbo jumbo being spouted here, the simple fact of the matter is there are at least a dozen laws that could be used, all that's needed is the Police/CPS to grow some balls and do their job.

it's pretty obvious to anybody with half a brain what he did was reckless, selfish, and idiotic and needs to be dealt with swiftly and firmly.

[tenpenceshort]

Public liability insurance is not the same as RTA insurance, Scuffers. The point is, you do not need RTA insurance to drive on an enclosed track if it is not a public place. Otherwise, if you did a track day in your non road-legal track car or testing or anything else you would need to have RTA insurance in place.

The laws this chap may be liable for I would imagine include public nuisance and false imprisonment of the passenger(s) in the car. I would imagine the latter is the most likely as there is decent video evidence and, cooperation from the girl may not be necessary.

I don't imagine any motoring offences will be forthcoming (if they do I of course accept I am wrong, but I doubt it).

As for civil action, any sensible lawyer will advise against it if the person being sued has no assets or means of paying any damages and costs. Suing for a large amount would attract a big costs bill for the claimant, which would remain unpaid by the defendant if he cannot pay for it. The phrase cutting your nose off to spite your face springs to mind. I would be very surprised if there were any civil action against the idiot for that reason alone.

Ultimately, despite the protestations, the organisers of the event should be prepared to shoulder some of the blame and possibly would were they to proceed in a civil claim. They were the ones with a duty of care towards the competitors' safety and they were negligent in allowing a member of the public to drive unimpeded onto the circuit.

None of which serves to excuse the utter st who did all of this, but neither should we remain childishly blind to the wider blame.

[tapkaJohnD]

tps,
The organisers would defend themselves by pleading that they took all "reasonable" precautions, by placing marshals appropriately, even though marshals that can only control those who wish to be controlled.

I've seen the stopping barriers at ferry ports, great toothed things that rise up out of the ground and tear into a vehicle that wanted to board or disembark, when the Customs men didn't. And the "rising bollards" that can stop a vehicle dead if driven into. But they are fitted at great public expence to control lunatic criminals (almost like this one) where criminals might be expected to drive. Which is not on and off a race circuit.

To install that sort of control point would be expensive, and would increase the cost of racing.
JOhn

[pingu393]

tapkaJohnD said:

tps,
The organisers would defend themselves by pleading that they took all "reasonable" precautions, by placing marshals appropriately, even though marshals that can only control those who wish to be controlled.

I've seen the stopping barriers at ferry ports, great toothed things that rise up out of the ground and tear into a vehicle that wanted to board or disembark, when the Customs men didn't. And the "rising bollards" that can stop a vehicle dead if driven into. But they are fitted at great public expence to control lunatic criminals (almost like this one) where criminals might be expected to drive. Which is not on and off a race circuit.

To install that sort of control point would be expensive, and would increase the cost of racing.
JOhn

The problem with the organiser's defence (as I see it) is that nobody attempted to stop him.

They relied on common sense (and maybe some painted signs) stopping him. Is that enough to clear them of blame (in the eyes of the law)?

He has no defence (other than "nobody tried to stop me") as he admitted on the video that he knew he was doing wrong.

JudgeJuryExecutioner said:

I just hope the Police, the CPS and the Courts get this right and he gets his balls chewed off, but I suspect that he will get 50hrs painting railings in the sunshine.

[Racing Rod]

tapkaJohnD said:

Rod,
I hope that you and your fellow competitors will not let your rightful wrath over come the rather obvious point that tjis manis a "man of straw". He will have no assets and little income. It would be futile as well as expensive, however satisfying, to sue him for £200,000. Better let the Police formulate some punitive penalty, that would have an impact on him. I have no idea if a prison sentence would be possible - if convicted, of course - but that would impact his position in the job market,for instance.

JOhn

We all realise that in real terms he may have little or no assets but although this may be the case today, this may change in the future. There are legal means by which a debt can be enforced and any judgement will be set against him until paid, this could be a lifetime in certain circumstances. There is also a means by which he could be forced to make monthly payments against the judgement debt which again could be a long term commitment. The view of many is that we must take action to ensure that others are not tempted to carry out copycat scenario's out of fear that they will also be taken to court and end up with a judgement for costs that will take them a lifetime or several, to repay. Any accumulation of assets or inheritance would also be at risk so this chap will forever be looking over his shoulder and aware that anything he may own now or in the future could be seized.

[tenpenceshort]

Racing Rod said:

We all realise that in real terms he may have little or no assets but although this may be the case today, this may change in the future. There are legal means by which a debt can be enforced and any judgement will be set against him until paid, this could be a lifetime in certain circumstances. There is also a means by which he could be forced to make monthly payments against the judgement debt which again could be a long term commitment. The view of many is that we must take action to ensure that others are not tempted to carry out copycat scenario's out of fear that they will also be taken to court and end up with a judgement for costs that will take them a lifetime or several, to repay. Any accumulation of assets or inheritance would also be at risk so this chap will forever be looking over his shoulder and aware that anything he may own now or in the future could be seized.

There would be nothing stopping the lad declaring himself bankrupt, meaning that after 1 year he could walk away debt free and owing you nothing. You, as a collective, would likely be left with a large and unpaid legal bill.

If you want there to be a public message, you should hope the Police are able to find a criminal charge to suit and the publicity serves its purpose.

Using the civil courts to chase people of no or little means over a matter of principle is going to get mighty expensive and end up fruitless.

[Racing Rod]

tenpenceshort said:

There would be nothing stopping the lad declaring himself bankrupt, meaning that after 1 year he could walk away debt free and owing you nothing. You, as a collective, would likely be left with a large and unpaid legal bill.

If you want there to be a public message, you should hope the Police are able to find a criminal charge to suit and the publicity serves its purpose.

Using the civil courts to chase people of no or little means over a matter of principle is going to get mighty expensive and end up fruitless.

Again, the risk of him declaring himself bankrupt is anticipated so it really comes down to the legal costs of moving forward. If this is dealt with "in house" by one or other of the big boys, the costs can be justified for as said, this is not just about making the boy pay for his stupidity, there is a much larger concern to consider in terms of protecting the sport we all care about. If we don't react we could leave ourselves open to a charge of indifference and there are plenty of people and organisations out there that would love to find yet another reason to complain and attempt action against all and any motorsport activities. The publicity would not go unnoticed so that could also be a factor that helps to assist the cause

[tenpenceshort]

Nonsense.

What you are suggesting is that you pay solicitors and barristers many thousands of pounds to (ab)use the courts process as a method of teaching this boy a lesson, knowing full well you are unlikely to get paid either your costs or any damages and that, within 12 months of judgment (assuming you win), the boy could easily have gone through bankruptcy and have come out the other side smelling of roses with no need to pay anything. It hardly seems much of a lesson at all, other than you can get away with being sued without having to pay and, for claimants, that it is an expensive hobby suing people for the wrong reasons.

All the while, any criminal charges this lad might face will do a far better job of publicly deterring scroates from trying the same, not to mention the organisers of such events tightening up their procedures so they properly protect competitors, who have a right to expect they can compete on a track free from unhindered trespassers.

I would have thought the experiences of Mark Hales would have taught the motorsport world when to stop chewing the bone.

[Racing Rod]

tenpenceshort said:

Nonsense.

What you are suggesting is that you pay solicitors and barristers many thousands of pounds to (ab)use the courts process as a method of teaching this boy a lesson, knowing full well you are unlikely to get paid either your costs or any damages and that, within 12 months of judgment (assuming you win), the boy could easily have gone through bankruptcy and have come out the other side smelling of roses with no need to pay anything. It hardly seems much of a lesson at all, other than you can get away with being sued without having to pay and, for claimants, that it is an expensive hobby suing people for the wrong reasons.

All the while, any criminal charges this lad might face will do a far better job of publicly deterring scroates from trying the same, not to mention the organisers of such events tightening up their procedures so they properly protect competitors, who have a right to expect they can compete on a track free from unhindered trespassers.

I would have thought the experiences of Mark Hales would have taught the motorsport world when to stop chewing the bone.

I'm not suggesting anything other then to look at the possibilities of suing this chap, you can't tell me that even the prospect of being sued has no effect !!

As said, if it's to be dealt with "in house" then the costs you refer to will not necessarily be unjustifiable, that's not my decision, it will be down to those who may or may not conduct the case.
I hope that the police do bring charges that have some bite and will indeed stand as a warning to others that consider similar actions, we will have to wait and see, but having this as an additional possibility and making sure the police and courts realise that this stupid lad could be accused of ruining a race weekend that cost over £200,000 can only help.

[tenpenceshort]

I appreciate I might be sounding antagonistic, and I apologise if I am, however the aggrieved here have to consider the reality rather than the desire for vengeance.

For a start, the court is bound by rules to act in the interests of justice. If you are suing a teenager with no cash or assets for £200,000, you are not going to get either your costs back or your £200,000, irrespective of the court's decision. It is not in the interests of justice to pursue a defendant who under no circumstances can pay, even if he wanted to. It's a waste of the court's time and the claimant's money. The defendant will laugh it off and the lawyers will collect their fees (from 'you').

This is notwithstanding the possibility that the claim may not go as much in favour of the claimant as you might like, as there would be questions asked about the responsibilities of the organisers to protect the track from trespass. If there was negligence on their behalf (which on the face of it, there certainly was), some of the blame will likely be apportioned their way.

I understand the frustration that this annoying tt ruined a perfectly good race weekend and that he should be responsible for his actions. That being the case, it still doesn't absolve people from blame who should have been doing a better job. Some of the spotlight should be on that if you really want to deal with the risk of repetition.

[Racing Rod]

tenpenceshort said:

I appreciate I might be sounding antagonistic, and I apologise if I am, however the aggrieved here have to consider the reality rather than the desire for vengeance.

For a start, the court is bound by rules to act in the interests of justice. If you are suing a teenager with no cash or assets for £200,000, you are not going to get either your costs back or your £200,000, irrespective of the court's decision. It is not in the interests of justice to pursue a defendant who under no circumstances can pay, even if he wanted to. It's a waste of the court's time and the claimant's money. The defendant will laugh it off and the lawyers will collect their fees (from 'you').

This is notwithstanding the possibility that the claim may not go as much in favour of the claimant as you might like, as there would be questions asked about the responsibilities of the organisers to protect the track from trespass. If there was negligence on their behalf (which on the face of it, there certainly was), some of the blame will likely be apportioned their way.

I understand the frustration that this annoying tt ruined a perfectly good race weekend and that he should be responsible for his actions. That being the case, it still doesn't absolve people from blame who should have been doing a better job. Some of the spotlight should be on that if you really want to deal with the risk of repetition.

I am given to understand that an internal investigation is taking place within MSV, they will of course want to find out how the incident was allowed to happen but at this moment they do not even know if the errant driver and his friends had entry tickets although the assumption is that they did. Notwithstanding the above, they somehow gained access to the inner paddock via the tunnels,then found an open garage that had been used to weight check the race cars. They then drove down the pit lane and onto the track. One can't blame the marshals for not jumping out in front of this idiot, they are not there to risk their own lives dealing with a loony imposter, and in any event they are used to drivers obeying flag signals and warning lights. So one then looks at circuit security but here again, without the facts to hand, how can we pre judge this aspect. In one sense the same ruling would apply to security officials as marshals, for they can't jump out in front of a determined idiot bent on gaining access, driving what could be considered at that stage as a lethal weapon. The open garage would be normal for weight testing and or noise assessment ( exhaust fumes etc.)

What you are then left with is to apply extremely strict access rules involving passes for teams and their support vehicles which would be a lot more understandable for F1 and the like, but Fun Cup is effectively club motorsport that supports easy access for teams, drivers and spectators alike ( the latter to a lessor degree). I have raced in British GT, Britcar and the original Tuscan challenge series and I can't tell you how many times within those series that I have had arguments at the gate just to get my towing/support vehicle into the paddock or next to our allocated garage with or without so called special passes that allow such access, it was a bloody nightmare. I don't want to see, and I'm sure others feel the same way, competitors and teams having to accept restricted access because of this little tt hence there being little appetite for turning on the circuit owners. Security can only go so far in an effort to stop idiots like this plonker, I've never experience anything such as this in twenty years of racing both here in the UK and abroad, I have however experience almost draconian measures posing as security that tends to spoil the overall racing competitor experience.

Edited by Racing Rod on Wednesday 2nd July 17:56