Breaking: Charles Leclerc slapped with massive time penalty after Miami GP

Charles Leclerc did not escape punishment for leaving the track and gaining an advantage multiple times on the final lap of the Miami Grand Prix.

The Ferrari driver, who was caught up in three post-race investigations in Florida, spun and crashed his SF-26 into the wall when fighting Oscar Piastri for the final podium position at the start of the final lap.

He managed to continue but had to defend heavily from George Russell and Max Verstappen in a bid to retain fourth, an endeavour he ultimately failed at, crossing the line in sixth at the Miami International Autodrome.

On the final lap, Leclerc used various run-off zones to make it to the line.

The stewards did not let Leclerc off lightly for doing so, handing him a 20-second time penalty and demoting him to eighth place.

As a result, Lewis Hamilton and  Franco Colapinto have all moved up one position each.

“The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 16 (Charles Leclerc), team representative and reviewed positioning/marshalling system data, video, team radio and in-car video evidence,” the stewards' document read.

“Car 16 spun on the last lap at turn 3 and hit the wall but continued on track. The driver informed us that the car appeared fine save that the car would not negotiate the right hand corners properly.

“Given this problem, he was forced to cut chicanes on the way to the chequered flag. We determined that the fact that he had to cut the chicanes (i.e. to leave the track) meant that he gained a lasting advantage by leaving the track in that manner. 

“The fact that he had a mechanical issue of some sort did not amount to a justifiable reason. We accordingly impose a Drive Through penalty on Car 16, given the number of times the car left the track and gained an advantage. 

“We also considered whether there was an additional breach in continuing to drive a car with an obvious and discernible mechanical issue. 

“We determined that there was no evidence of there being an obvious of discernible mechanical issue. We therefore took no further action in relation to that potential infringement.”