FIA reject McLaren right of review appeal regarding US Grand Prix penalty

McLaren’s right of review appeal regarding Lando Norris’ five-second penalty at the United States Grand Prix has been thrown out. 

McLaren argued that the FIA included an incorrect statement in its document regarding Norris’ penalty; however, the FIA have determined that an error in an FIA document is not sufficiently new evidence to justify a right of review appeal.

FIA reject McLaren right of review appeal regarding US Grand Prix penalty

In the closing laps of the United States Grand Prix, Lando Norris and Max Verstappen were battling wheel to wheel in pursuit of the final step on the podium.

Heading into Turn 12 on Lap 52, Norris attempted to pass Verstappen around the outside. However, the Red Bull driver skewed wide as well, pushing Norris off the track surface while going wide himself.

Both drivers definitively left the racing surface, but only Norris was penalized for doing so. Per the FIA, Norris’ maneuver should have earned him a 10-second penalty, but in light of Verstappen’s role in the situation, the FIA cut that penalty down to five seconds.

McLaren spoke out against the penalty, arguing that it was unfair. The ruling also once again raised concerns regarding consistency with stewarding.

However, on October 24, McLaren submitted a right of review petition with the stewards. A meeting was held between McLaren and the stewards in Mexico City at 2:30 p.m. local time on Friday, October 25.

Understanding Lando Norris’ US Grand Prix penalty:

👉 The killer question facing McLaren in tense title fight with Red Bull

👉 Why Lando Norris must harness his inner Max Verstappen to actually beat him

That meeting was the first of what could have been a two-part process. In that first session, McLaren was tasked with submitting evidence to the FIA that could show there is a “significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the party seeking the Review at the time of the Decision concerned.”

Andrea Stella and Randeep Singh represented McLaren, while Johnathan Wheatley and Stephen Knowles represented Red Bull.

McLaren stated that the “significant and new” element was that “the document for the decision contained a statement that was incorrect and that evidenced an objective, measurable and provable error had been made by the stewards.”

In effect, McLaren argued that the FIA’s statement that Car No. 4 was overtaking Car No. 1 was incorrect, because the McLaren had already overtaken the Red Bull. Therefore, Car No. 4 was the defending car.

The FIA, however, determined that “the concept that the written Decision was the significant and new element, or that an error in the decision was a new element, is not sustainable and is, therefore rejected.”

As such, the right of review appeal has been rejected. There will be no second hearing regarding the case.

In order to be considered, a right of review appeal needs to include evidence that meets four criteria: that it is significant, that it is relevant, that it is new, and that it was unavailable to McLaren at the time of the decision.

The FIA have determined that McLaren’s evidence — namely, its assertion that an error was made in the FIA document and that this constitutes a “new” element — is not relevant. The FIA stated that “this is unsustainable.”

“A petition for review is made in order to correct an error (of fact or law) in a decision,” the FIA wrote in its statement. “Any new element must demonstrate that error. That error that must be shown to exist, cannot itself be the element referred to in Article 14.”

However, the stewards did note that that Article 14 is designed for decisions taken as a result of a hearing, rather than in a race environment. The stewards have drawn this to the attention of the regulatory authority, the FIA, with the aim of reviewing Article 14 for the future.

Read more: McLaren reveal Mexico GP upgrades in bid to regain dominance over F1 rivals