Archive Documents
1. Does this apply to me?
THE CHECKLIST:
Are you involved with motor events or activities off the
public highway?
1. If any person proceeds more than 15 yards from a road
with a mechanically propelled vehicle without the written
permission of the landowner or are going to park, they are
probably committing an offence.
-Unless they are taking part in an off-highway activity
authorised by a Statutory Governing Body such as the IOPD.
This is what is meant by ‘off-highway ‘ or ‘off-road’ in the
context of the Road Traffic Act, it does not necessarily
only mean 4x4s!
2. Organisers of such off-highway event or activity
should be aware that they and the participants potentially
face prosecution and substantial penalties if their event or
activity operates without a Road Traffic Act Off Road Event
Authorisation Permit issued by a Statutory Governing Body.
Several organizers of unauthorised events have already been
charged with corporate manslaughter offences.
3. The IOPD makes provision in its rules and regulations
for permitting vehicles, drivers or riders that may not be
fully road legal (i.e. not registered, licenced or MoT
tested); or driven (or ridden) in a road-like manner.
Provisions are also made for drivers and riders who may not
be fully licensed or of appropriate age.
4. Persons found guilty of Road Traffic Act offences at
unauthorised off-highway activities may receive points, a
banning orders or even custodial sentences: even when on
private land and with permission.
An Authorisation Permit is advisory for temporary venues
(e.g. showgrounds) as well as permanent venues, such as
stadiums, circuits and activity centres (this has legal
precedent: all parts of a stadium are considered to be part
of a ‘public place’.
A Permit changes the legal status of an event or activity
under regulations made by the Secretary of State. The Permit
exempts organisers and participants from prosecutions
arising from sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act.
All mechanically propelled vehicle activities and events
taking place off-highway involving any or all of non road
legal vehicles, non fully licensed drivers, driving in a
manner different to the public highway (fast or challenging
or likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, comes
within this) are advised to be authorised under permit of a
Statutory Governing Body, such as IOPD.
2. How the need for
Authorisation came about
A dramatic increase in dangerous behaviour…
In the late 1980s the Association of Chief Police Officers (APCO),
under pressure from both the public and politicians, became
increasingly concerned about the dramatic increase in
reports of dangerous, careless and inconsiderate use of
mechanically propelled vehicles in parks, on paths and in
fields and other places including commercial venues, shows
and the like to which the public were admitted either free
or on payment of a fee. Having evolved a very well tried and
tested system of control fines and imprisonment under the
Road Traffic Act for ‘on road’ use of vehicles, APCO
advisors identified a very simple way forward. Take the 1988
Road Traffic Act and especially Sections 1, 2 and 3 covering
dangerous, careless and inconsiderate driving and death by
the same, change the words ‘public road’ to ‘public place’
and motor vehicle to cover any mechanically propelled
vehicle (MPV) and ‘job done’.
Now anybody virtually anywhere driving or riding any
mechanically propelled vehicle irresponsibly, or in a way
that causes, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or
annoyance, can be banged to rights by police prosecutions
through the Magistrates Court system.
The Department of Transport then also decided that this
would be an ideal chance to sort out all the un-regulated
auto sports and leisure activities where the safety of the
participants and spectators was not governed by an inspected
industry set of standards. Their answer was to introduce the
Off Road (Off Highway) Events Regulations at the same time
and under the same amendment. Special Instrument 1370 was
approved and became part of the 1991 Road Traffic Act on the
3rd June 1992.
Can this be enforced?
It is being enforced, and this is how. The government is
handing down the enforcement using existing legislation. The
current Road Traffic Act covers ANY mechanically propelled
vehicle in ANY public place - in fact, virtually everywhere.
The legal solution is easy with IOPD and the governing body
systems, and it’s the way forward. Long term, the
organisations following this route are on their way to a
more enduring and profitable business, distanced from the
‘cowboys’, providing social benefit and exciting real-world
stimulation. Justified? We’d say so… An Authorisation Permit
is necessary. Others Statutory Governing Bodies, including
the MSA, can provide permits too. Others just provide for
single marque car events for example. The IOPD provides
bespoke packages for event organisers’ specific requirement
for their type of activity. And the IOPD already recognizes
some 37 different types of auto leisure activities.
The IOPD has sum 30 years of involvement with the law and
has successfully defended High Court and Court of Appeal
actions against motorsport organisers
The following are some key judgments in support of the
Risk Taking for stimulation:
The following quotes are from a recent House of Lords
opinion on risk taking for the enjoyment of leisure
activities. The judgment moves to restrain the culture of
blame and compensation when people suffer through
self-inflicted harm or obvious risks in participating in
high-risk activities.
3. The liberty of the
individual
The liberty of the individual to engage in dangerous but
otherwise harmless pastimes
Tomlinson vs. Congleton
House of Lords Appeal (2003)
UKHL47
Lord Hobhouse: "It is not, and should never be, the
policy of the law to require the protection of the foolhardy
or reckless few to deprive, or interfere with, the
environment by the remainder of society of the liberties and
amenities to which they are entitled.” in truth, the
arguments for the claimant have involved an attack upon the
liberties of the citizen that should not be countenanced.
They attack the liberty of the individual to engage in
dangerous, but otherwise harmless activities, at his own
risk and the liberty of citizens as a whole fully to enjoy
the variety and quality of the landscape of this country.
The pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and
compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly
the interference with the liberty of the citizen."
‘Volenti Non Fit Injura’ -one knowing the risks one
willingly takes the risks
1. Serious or fatal accidents involving mechanically
propelled vehicles in leisure activities call in to
question, has someone been negligent? Or, was the accident
caused by an act of God? (An accident unrelated to human
intervention).
2. In challenging activities, experience shows us that in
the vast majority of cases, accidents have a single cause;
for example a participant or competitor making an error of
judgment, losing control and crashing.
The nature of most activities is to be challenging and
therefore stimulating i.e. very near or on the limit of
losing control!
Although organisers may put in place every ‘reasonable’
safety procedures to cover this eventuality it is not always
possible to cover ‘unforeseen’ and unavoidable incidents
that may result in serious or fatal injuries.
3. Auto activity’s stimulation for the human animal is the
fear of the repercussions of going beyond the limit,
balanced with the exhilaration of the skill of going nearer
to the limit, in skill or speed, than all the others who
have gone before, or are taking part at the same time in the
activity.
Deep in the psyche of the human being is the need to be
recognised as the best hunter-gatherer in the tribe, thereby
taking back the trophy for their family. This is very
stimulating and exhilarating for the participants and
elevates them out of an otherwise bland 21st century
existence. Those who participate, spectate and support
people in challenging situations using mechanically
propelled vehicles should all understand the risks verses
the enhanced enjoyment factor: The legal precedent is
‘Volenti Non Fit Injura’ (one knowing the risks one
willingly takes the risks) Brooklands vs. Hall 1933 1KB205.
4. All organisers should ensure that: -
a) The participants and spectators are aware of the risks.
(Harrison vs. Vincent RTR8 (CA)
b) There is no criminal
disregard for the participants’ and spectators’ safety.
(Wooldridge vs. Sumner 1963 2QB43).
There are now substantial Health & Safety manuals on
procedures and ‘good practice’ that cover or overlap into
event organisation.
5. UK Health & Safety Law mandates that no person involved
with a work-related activity should knowingly be placed in a
dangerous situation. Successful prosecutions may result in
substantial fines or a custodial sentence. To blatantly
breach laid down procedures could amount to criminal
disregard.
6. Public opinion dictates that those responsible for
safety, including volunteer club members, can no longer
remain outside the scope of the HSE and police enquiries in
high profile cases, no matter which organisation or what
venue is involved.
The critical path analysis for off highway auto event
activity organisers: -
i) Is there a clearly identifiable formal organisation or
individual ultimately responsible? I.e. a recognised Club
with a constitution, a Limited Company, a Partnership or
Sole Trader? If not any person or persons deemed responsible
might be charged.
ii). Is there a legal and binding agreement between the
landowner or his leaseholder and the organising entity? I.e.
an interest in land contract. If such an agreement does not
exist then the landowner may be solely or jointly liable for
actions he permitted on his land.
iii). Was the event being run under an authorisation permit
issued by a Department of Transport recognised authorising
Governing Body? If not a participant may be charged under
the Road Traffic Acts. Organisers may also be charged under
the laws of complicity this carries the potential of massive
fines, community service orders or up to 6 years’
imprisonment.
iv) Was the event being run under nationally recognised
operational rules and regulations?
Ref: DOT Guidelines
HGU9227
v). Were the organisers, marshals and staff qualified and
suitably experienced? Do they hold appropriate certificates
of competence? If not, organisers may be held to have been
incompetent.
7. The critical path analysis after fatal or serious
accident.
a) Organisers must inform a police officer. The police
officer may then take over as the Coroner’s Agent or suggest
that the organisers appoint their own suitable person,
possibly a JP or solicitor. They will receive and record all
documents, statements and reports applicable to the accident
and when requested provide these to the Coroner or the
courts.
b) Immediately collect as many witness names as possible
(use the public address system to ensure that no witness
leaves the event without leaving their name with an
official). Record if the witness has photo or video evidence
to collect later. (25 – 50 witness statements are not
unusual).
c) Photograph or commission photography of the accident
site. Take photographs from as many angles as possible.
d) Measure and record all facts, marks, impacts and all
details leading up to the accident.
e) Impound and inspect (without altering) any vehicles
involved. Collect written reports from an appropriate
scrutineer or release the vehicle to the police vehicle
inspectorate.
f) Collect written report forms from the senior medics
engaged at the venue.
g) Complete a HSE RIDDOR form within 24 hours.
h) Inform the insurers of the event.
i) Inform the appropriate Governing/Authorising Body.
j) Collect endorsements from senior competitors or experts
on the course condition and suitability. Record any prior
criticism received of the course suitability and any changes
introduced as a result.
k) Ensure the security of the participating individuals’
signing on forms (the participants’ contracts) and make
copies for the Governing/Authorising Body.
8. Whilst following the basic procedures listed in this
document it is the policy of the IOPD to provide authorised
event organisers with a set of guidelines that are simple,
practical and easy to follow. Each event can be unique and
in it, every situation can be multifaceted. The IOPD relies
largely upon a common sense and practical approach by
experienced and knowledgeable officials following basic
systems of good practice.
4. Tomlinson vs. Congleton
House of Lords Appeal (2003) UKHL47
LORD HUTTON: “As the common law is just the formal statement
of the results and conclusions of the common sense of
mankind, I come without difficulty to the conclusion that
precautions which have been rejected by common sense as
unnecessary and inconvenient are not required by the law.”
LORD HOFFMAN: “It seems to me that Mr. Tomlinson suffered
his injury because he chose to indulge in an activity which
had inherent dangers, not because the premises were in a
dangerous state.
Mr. Tomlinson was freely and voluntarily
undertaking an activity, which inherently involved some
risk.
A duty to protect against obvious risks or self-inflicted
harm exists only in cases in which there is no genuine and
informed choice.”
LORD HOBHOUS: “It is not, and should never be, the policy of
the law to require the protection of the foolhardy or
reckless few to deprive, or interfere with, the enjoyment by
the remainder of society of the liberties and amenities to
which they are rightly entitled.
In truth, the arguments for the claimant have involved an
attack upon the liberties of the citizen that should not be
countenanced. They attack the liberty of the individual to
engage in dangerous, but otherwise harmless, pastimes at his
own risk and the liberty of citizens as a whole fully to
enjoy the variety and quality of the landscape of this
country. The pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and
compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly
the interference with the liberty of the citizen.” The
discussion of social utility in the Illinois Supreme Court
is to the same effect: Bucheleres vs. Chicago Park District
171 I11
5. The case of Gorringe vs.
Calderdale MBC (2204) 1 WLR 1057
The house returned to the theme of individual
responsibility. Lord Hoffmann noted, “drivers are first and
foremost themselves responsible for their own safety” [para
76]. Lord Brown thought it reasonable that the policy of the
law should be to leave the responsibility for the accident
on the negligent road user rather than requiring the highway
authority to protect him against his own careless conduct.
Stanley Burnton J in Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club
vs. The Corporation of London (2005) EWHC713 (Admin).
“In my judgement, for the purposes of s3 of HSW 1974 Act, if
an adult swimmer with knowledge of the risks of swimming
chooses to swim unsupervised, the risks he incurs are the
result of his decision and not of the permission given him
to swim. And it follows that those risks are not the result
of the conduct by the employer of his undertaking, and the
employer is not liable to be convicted of an offence under
that provision.” [para 63].
6. Kent & Sevenoaks
The importance of the criminal law not introducing a
liability where none existed in civil law was recently
considered by HHJ Lawson QC in HSE vs. Kent CC & Sevenoaks
DC (13 June 2005 Maidstone Crown Court).
“I rule that the exercise, or failure to exercise a
statutory power, and/or inadequacies in their scheme of
management does not amount to the ‘conduct of their
undertaking’.”
The HSE chose not to appeal the ruling of the court, but
accepted it and offered no evidence against each defendant.
Legal advisers may also wish to refer to Lord Parker CJ in R
v Waters (1963); The Criminal Appeal Reports 1963, Volume 47
pages 149-156, edited by T R Fitzwalter Butler, also to
Cawley v Frost 1976 which held all parts of a stadium to be
part of a ‘public place’ not only the specific spectator
areas.
7. Uren vs. Corporate Leisure
Ltd (2010) EWHC 46-QB
Poppleton vs. TPYAC (2008) EWCA CIV646
Parker vs. TVI Ltd (2009)
Gave evidence to the fact that the Courts will vigorously
defend our freedom to engage in the challenging pursuits,
notwithstanding the tragic outcomes that are sometimes
inherent in such activities and that defendants’ failure to
produce comprehensive risk assessments are not causing
injuries, rather it is the claimant’s failure to
self-censure their own behaviour which is the cause
|
