This idiot needs locking up.

Neil Horan, the mad dancing ex-priest who ran onto the track during the 2003 British Grand Prix was charged with, pleaded guilty to and went down for aggravated tresspass, so it certainly stuck with that venue!
 
Yves Geza said:
Neil Horan, the mad dancing ex-priest who ran onto the track during the 2003 British Grand Prix was charged with, pleaded guilty to and went down for aggravated tresspass, so it certainly stuck with that venue!
Click to expand...

And what a sentence! ! ;)
 
Bernie174 said:
In doubt there's much chance of false imprisonment sticking. I can think of a defence to that immediately.
In fact its difficult to see any criminal offence sticking with that one, aggravated trespass is about it, and thats pushing it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was discussing this on FB yesterday. Although he really has done something very wrong, it's hard to see what actual law he's broken (assuming the false imprisonment is as bogus as it sounds).

Do we have something like reckless endangerment in the UK?
 
Aggravated tresspas won't stick either given the venue. Civil yes...criminal no.
Click to expand...

In terms of venue, it fits perfectly. In terms of intent....Struggling a tad. Depends on what he says after arrest. If he's got a solicitor who gives him the answers pre interview (Gosh Bent Solicitors...Who'd have thought it!), then he'd walk. If he gets gobby and boastful, he'll probably drop himself in it.

The boat race chap was charged with s5 of the public order act later changed to public nuisance
Click to expand...

The Thames is a public place. A race track isn't.

Do we have something like reckless endangerment in the UK?
Click to expand...

Nope, not in the sense you mean no.

You are correct though it is a struggle to find anything criminal that fits. The false imprisonment isn't a runner in my opinion, his answer to that if he has 1/2 a brain cell active, is that he did a lap, and turned off down the pits lane as he considered it unsafe to stop anywhere else. It's not a rocket science defence but it would get him off.
 
Last edited:
Brands is a private venue.
Criminal trespass is generally reserved for crown or military property...though there have been exceptions.
 
Sorry Viv that isn't the case.
Trespass has the same meaning as in civil law, and means to be on someone elses property without their permission.
The offence definition is as follows

Offence of aggravated trespass.


(1)
A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land [F2in the open air] , does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a)
of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b)
of obstructing that activity, or
(c)
of disrupting that activity.

There is a separate offence in relation to most military land, it falls under being in a prohibited place within the meaning of the official secrets acts 1911 onwards. The same act that prevents us from taking photos inside some military establishments.
 
Bernie174 said:
The false imprisonment isn't a runner in my opinion, his answer to that if he has 1/2 a brain cell active, is that he did a lap, and turned off down the pits lane as he considered it unsafe to stop anywhere else. It's not a rocket science defence but it would get him off.
Click to expand...
In the video, his girlfriend is begging and pleading with him, grabbing at the steering wheel in an attempt to get him to stop. But he didn't stop. He knew exactly what his intent was and deliberately drove out of the pit lane onto the track. as for a safe place to stop, as you come off Graham Hill Bend into Cooper Straight, there is an escape road on the right that leads into the paddock, he could have stopped safely just as the race cars do if they breakdown or go off around that area. At the other end of Cooper Straight just as he turned into Surtees there is another escape road on his right that leads into the assembly/parc ferme area which would take them back into the paddock, again he didn't stop. If he turned left at Surtees he could have navigated the plastic bollards laid out on the track and stopped at the entrance to the Grand Prix circuit not being used that day, again he didn't stop. Coming out of Surtees into Clearways he could have turned left stopped on the unused Grand Prix part of the circuit, but again he didn't stop and continued. That's 4 safe chances he had of pulling over before he re-entered the pitlane and stopped. So I don't see anyway how any judge with any sense could let him off. Especially with all the pathetic bragging he has done since.
 
Bernie174 said:
Sorry Viv that isn't the case.
Trespass has the same meaning as in civil law, and means to be on someone elses property without their permission.
The offence definition is as follows

Offence of aggravated trespass.


(1)
A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land [F2in the open air] , does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a)
of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b)
of obstructing that activity, or
(c)
of disrupting that activity.

There is a separate offence in relation to most military land, it falls under being in a prohibited place within the meaning of the official secrets acts 1911 onwards. The same act that prevents us from taking photos inside some military establishments.
Click to expand...

Your own post has just pointed out that trespass and possible aggravated trespass are not the same, which is why a "trespassers will be prosecuted" sign on private land is a joke.
 
Last edited:
Clearly Nilagin, you know the track, he will no doubt claim he didn't, and did what he thought best. False imprisonment really isn't going to run.

Viv
The trespass part is the same, in aggravated trespass there is an intent to do one of the 3 things a-c in addition to being a trespasser.
simply being say on someones land, taking a short cut for example is civil trespass, and is dealt with by the owner removing the trespasser, or taking civil procedings. While that isn't strictly speaking prosecuting, it is taking court action.
As a side issue, trespass is also an element in Burglary, which is
Entering a building, or part of a building as a trespasser, with intent to commit therein Theft, Criminal Damage, Rape or GBH
or
Having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser commits therein Theft or Criminal Damage.
 
Bernie174 said:
Clearly Nilagin, you know the track, he will no doubt claim he didn't, and did what he thought best. False imprisonment really isn't going to run.

Viv
The trespass part is the same, in aggravated trespass there is an intent to do one of the 3 things a-c in addition to being a trespasser.
simply being say on someones land, taking a short cut for example is civil trespass, and is dealt with by the owner removing the trespasser, or taking civil procedings. While that isn't strictly speaking prosecuting, it is taking court action.
As a side issue, trespass is also an element in Burglary, which is
Entering a building, or part of a building as a trespasser, with intent to commit therein Theft, Criminal Damage, Rape or GBH
or
Having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser commits therein Theft or Criminal Damage.
Click to expand...

Yes...I'm not saying it's not a factor in other crimes.
 
Yves Geza said:
Perhaps you don't know, gunslinger, that "The Decking" has always been a major part of motor racing. Paddock punch-ups can be the most memorable bit of a day's adrenaline fuelled fun!

I know that full-throttle Cottle returned to the collecting area to be met by some of those narked FunCup competitors and it's a sad reflection on this safety concious age that they were all too polite to teach him the error of his ways! Once upon a time I would have joined into weighing into him and I certainly used to know at least one very large and strong #1 mechanic who would have fed him a trolley jack and a torque wrench straight off if his car's race had been spoiled! And I'm not exagerating ...



... you see, gunslinger, when I first played with both, it was sex that was safe and motor racing that was dangerous!




Apart from all else, apparently Brands was running with short staff last weekend because lots of the orange-suited motor-racing zombles were over at the Sathe. As for any carp about lax security, it's always been possible to walk onto a race track if you really wanted to. Incredibly stupid but possible. Not so stupidly, I used to walk into Silverstone F1 Grands Prix without any tickets just by knowing which alleyway to arrive from and looking like I owned the place. It was only the electronic F1 paddock turnstiles that put a stop to that!

However you haven't "got lost" when you drive from the Scratchers Lane entrance, through the paddock gate, past the offices to the outside collecting area, through the car tunnel, through the centre paddock and [as the video shows] know that the pitlane entrance is at the very far end. It was perfectly fair that 3 1/2 hours into a 4 hour race [IIRC] everyone properly involved was busy dealing with other things!
Click to expand...



Club meetings the tunnel is generally open as the 'lesser' competitors without a garage travel to and from the outside pit/collection area and it's generally been allowed to run up there with a vehicle carrying anything required last minute, timing gear etc, especially for the single sweaters, caterhams etc. you could drive around the end of the pits whilst a Rac was on and go out the pit entry or pit exit if you drive down the whole of the pit lane. As was said, if the car has speed up then it'll be waved at but no one is going to stand in its way.

Surely what the muppet has posted on his Faceberk page can be taken into account. Apart from showing poor education, it also points to a complete lack of accepting he's done anything wrong, far from it, he's openly crowing about it.

And yes, his girlfriends car was lucky not to be turned on its roof when it came off circuit.

Still, with a bit of luck his insurance company was watching and will put a note on the system.
 
Last edited:
A pity he didn't get collected and receive a Darwin's award - would have been one less illiterate ignorant tattoed chav cluttering up this earth.
 
f1charlie said:
A pity he didn't get collected and receive a Darwin's award - would have been one less illiterate ignorant tattoed chav cluttering up this earth.
Click to expand...

Kill one, two more are spawned. Best have them exiled to somewhere a long way away without the resources to build rafts.
 
If he wants to try something daring, I'm more than willing to buy him a one way plane ticket so he can go sky diving over Baghdad.
 
nilagin said:
If he wants to try something daring, I'm more than willing to buy him a one way plane ticket so he can go sky diving over Baghdad.
Click to expand...

Been there a few times with work. It's not that bad...even now :LOL: I can think of worse places to send him!
 
"i just wanna say a massive massive massive thank you to all the suppoirt from everyone i know what i done was naughtyt not gonna lie it was dangerous but only in the wrong hands i know how to drive a car an wouldnt be stupid enough to smash it into the side of a pack of beetles plus i stayed to the right hand side letting faster cars go past my left, all you haters are literally comical your all textbook nerds! none of you have even seen or felt a vagina and your all do as your told's an in my eyes that makes you a shrivvled testice, i live everyday like its my last an i wouldnt change a thing iv ever done, do you know why??? cause all you haters are proper nonces who wish tghey had colonies like mine!!! i done something what no ones ever done before it was stupid not gonna lie but moan to brands hatch instead cause they failed the security breech haaa if it was really that dangerous how come no one battered an eyelid when i drove on"


What a c**t...

He should have paid more attention in his English classes as well.
 
:LOL: good points, well made
 
andrewc said:
He's not sorry in the slightest, but thinks this will defuse the situation
Click to expand...

Yeah that whole article reads like a prep for his defence.

He never intended to do it.....he's amazed people didn't stop him (so it's their fault, right?)....he's horrified at all the preparation he ruined......apologises to drivers and fans.....

Complete with a puppy dog eyed headshot and vague unsubstantiated claims that people "threatened" him with death by cancer.

All of this only stacks up as an appeal to the jury.
 
You can see his legal defence starting ... although I drove into and down the pitlane, they were negligent because no-one actually prevented me from driving onto the track! Obviously I was planning to stop immediaitely I was told it was in any way wrong! :rolleyes:

I suspect the in-car video will give the lie to that one!

FWIW, if I were helping him with his defence I'd engage Bernie 174 as an expert witness to explain that he wasn't driving quickly nor did he overtake anyone! ;) :p



ETA ... exactlly as the other Jonathan has just posted!
 
Last edited:
You can see his legal defence starting ... although I drove into and down the pitlane, they were negligent because no-one actually prevented me from driving onto the track! Obviously I was planning to stop immediaitely I was told it was in any way wrong!
Click to expand...

Thats not a defense, it's mitigation.

In any case, assuming these death threats were actually made, it's just as bad as his actions. It has nothing to do with 99.999% of the population, but people seem to think that they should stick thier noses in.

Yeah that whole article reads like a prep for his defence.

He never intended to do it.....he's amazed people didn't stop him (so it's their fault, right?)....he's horrified at all the preparation he ruined......apologises to drivers and fans.....

Complete with a puppy dog eyed headshot and vague unsubstantiated claims that people "threatened" him with death by cancer.

All of this only stacks up as an appeal to the jury.
Click to expand...

But it's OK if a fine upstanding member of society does it? Sorry, but I have sat at the back of Courts yawning numerous times listening to that sort of fiction, from all types of defendant. You can't change the rules just because he's the sort of low life who you wouldn't want on the bottom of your shoe.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
In any case, assuming these death threats were actually made, it's just as bad as his actions.
Click to expand...

That's a very big if. There's a whole wide world of difference between "that was stupid, I wish you'd died" and "I'm going to kill you". Even with the new "no merriment on Twitter" laws.

And the reason he's getting beaten up in social media? Well, he posted the video to YouTube......
 
That's a very big if. There's a whole wide world of difference between "that was stupid, I wish you'd died" and "I'm going to kill you". Even with the new "no merriment on Twitter" laws.

And the reason he's getting beaten up in social media? Well, he posted the video to YouTube......
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it any less criminal I'm afraid.
 
Byker28i said:
More like he's had legal advice that his facebook comments and lack of remorse will go against him in court.
Click to expand...


Exactly. A complete and utter cock cannot undergo a complete personality change in a couple of weeks, no matter what happens to them. Clearly his legal representation have advised him that he needs to be suitably contrite now. Well... it may fool the majority of idiots, but it cuts no ice with me.... he's still a c**t.
 
Exactly. A complete and utter cock cannot undergo a complete personality change in a couple of weeks, no matter what happens to them. Clearly his legal representation have advised him that he needs to be suitably contrite now. Well... it may fool the majority of idiots, but it cuts no ice with me.... he's still a c**t.
Click to expand...

He has yet to be charged with anything, in any case, it's all a bit pointless making statements now. If he had been acting on legal advice that would be to button it.
I think this is just an attempt at sympathy vote, given the flack he's had.
 
It was quite funny but also very reckless. I'd imagine he would be quite reckless on the public roads as well which I'd ban him from for a year or two so he can mature and reflect on it. The death threats he's receiving should be investigated and punished too.
 
It was quite funny but also very reckless. I'd imagine he would be quite reckless on the public roads as well which I'd ban him from for a year or two so he can mature and reflect on it.
Click to expand...

Rightly or wrongly, there's no legal basis for disqualifying him from driving. BH is a private place, and not a road.
 
Nice. At least he'll be spending a little time at her Maj's pleasure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top