Car drives into pedestrians at Liverpool FC victory parade. Man detained

Just a wild guess of my own but I suspect that the DCC is a fast-track candidate who saw very little police at the "sharp end". Old ex-cop mates of mine describe such people as never having "seen an angry man".

Moo and I'm happy to be corrected - "grieviously" corrected!
ACC Sims joined Merseyside Police in 1993 and took 25 years to reach the ACC rank in 2018.

As she started off with Merseyside Police, I presume she's from the area. How would somebody with a Scouse accent say 'grievous'?

 
"Now that Paul Doyle has been charged, we ask that the judicial process be allowed to continue without any speculation online or anywhere else that could impede the pursuit of justice for all of those affected," she added.

“A total of 79 people were injured. We continue to be in contact with our officers and staff, and seven people remain in hospital receiving the expert care of our NHS colleagues. I hope that all of those who are injured, all witnessed in this terrible incident, are able given time to heal and recover.

  • The investigation team has today been granted further time to continue questioning the 53-year-old in police custody, which will remain in place until tomorrow.
  • Water Street has now reopened to vehicles and pedestrians after the police cordon was stood down.
  • Merseyside Police believe a car that hit crowds of people followed an ambulance after a road block was temporarily lifted so paramedics could help a member of the public who suffered a suspected heart attack.

snipped from above
  • The investigation team has today been granted further time to continue questioning the 53-year-old in police custody, which will remain in place until tomorrow.

My understanding of UK law is that once a suspect has been charged, then no further questioning is allowed.
 
That is from before the latest update when they still weren't named yet. So pre charge.
 
snipped from above
  • The investigation team has today been granted further time to continue questioning the 53-year-old in police custody, which will remain in place until tomorrow.

My understanding of UK law is that once a suspect has been charged, then no further questioning is allowed.
Two different articles have been posted with quotes from each. One after he has been named and another earlier article before he has been named which makes it very confusing.
The article mentioning still being questioned is from an earlier article .You are absolutely correct that questioning cannot continue after someone has been charged.
 
Firstly, I hope all affected get all the help they need to make a full recovery both physically and mentally.

I watched the footage and I really think this is a driver going into fight or flight mode which has caused the incident.

The driver was driving slowly down the road until his vehicle was attacked by supporters - he then seems to have panicked.

I might be completely wrong but I don’t think this is as clear cut as other similar incidents we’ve seen.

I would have thought by the time they released the suspicion of charges they’d have known whether or not he had drugs in his system.

I think when this goes to trial it’ll be very difficult to get a fair jury who are unaware that he was arrested on suspicion of drug driving.

I think a jury would rightly look much favourably on a man who panicked when his car was attacked by fans.

Rather than a man who panicked when driving with drugs in his system.

Let's be very careful how we phrase things, remembering the fans are the victims. When they got annoyed by the car, it was already driving erratically down a road that should have had no cars on it. The phrasing here (twice) suggests blame.

I am from Merseyside and the fans here have a history of being blamed for tragedy. If you drive a car through a large crowd of fans coming down from a long wet and excited afternoon, you should know a) not to drive there at all and b) to drive sensibly.

Regardless of fan actions, this man used a car like a weapon.

My 14-yr-old went to the parade (albeit the start of it), and only turned home early because of the weather, so perhaps I'm a little sensitive. He said it was an amazing atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
IMPORTANT

Effective with the arrest in this case, sub judice is in effect and will be until a trial has concluded. For anyone not familiar with the judicial principle of sub judice, please review the following.

Websleuths is based in the U.S. but we do try to manage the various discussions to comply with laws of other countries.

As this trial is in the U.K., the case is under sub judice so please avoid anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant").
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits.
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits.
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits.
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits.

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:
Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.
 
I wonder what happened to the person who the ambulance was originally called for. The article above said it was called for a suspected heart attack. Did the paramedics ever even make it to this person to provide treatment? What if they had died? Couldn't the driver of the car be charged with murder?
 
I wonder what happened to the person who the ambulance was originally called for. The article above said it was called for a suspected heart attack. Did the paramedics ever even make it to this person to provide treatment? What if they had died? Couldn't the driver of the car be charged with murder?
No.
 
Paul Doyle arrived at Liverpool's court building earlier this morning.

Around two dozen members of the press are waiting to go into courtroom 36.

The case will be heard before District Judge Paul Healey.

We’re in position in courtroom 36 now, seated on what are usually the jury benches.

It’s expected that every seat in this room will be taken up by members of the press, while there is also an overflow courtroom in 33 where proceedings will be beamed via a video link.

The case will be heard before District Judge Paul Healey.

Philip Astbury appears for the prosecution.

Richard Derby will represent Doyle.




 
Doyle’s solicitor Richard Derby has now entered the courtroom.

We’re expecting the hearing to begin any moment.

District Judge Healey enters, and the hearing is ready to begin.

Doyle is brought into court.

He walks slowly into the dock wearing a black suit, white shirt and grey tie and sports short dark hair.

Doyle speaks to confirm his address on Burghill Road and his date of birth, November 4 1971.

The judge asks him to be seated.

Doyle sits with his head bowed in the dock.

Mr Astbury rises and asks for reporting restrictions to put on the names of the six complainants, including the four adults.

He seeks to do so on the basis that it will preserve the quality of their evidence due to the high profile nature of what he calls an “exceptional case”.

Mr Derby has no representations to make on behalf of the defendant regarding the issue.

District Judge Healey says he will rise briefly while the application is considered by members of the press.

Doyle is taken back out of the dock.



 
District Judge Healey reenters.

Doyle is returned to the dock.He takes his seat once more and again sits with his head bowed.

Eleanor Barlow from the Press Association rises to make representations on behalf of the media seeking clarity on the reasoning behind the application and highlights that the victims may have already been pictured in images from the scene.

District Judge Healey says he will retire once more to consider the matter.

Doyle, who has appeared ashen face with his hair unkempt, is again taken from the dock to the cells.



 
Last edited:
Doyle was initially held on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs.

But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) confirmed he had not been charged with any drug-related offences after he was quizzed for almost 72 hours.

Doyle, dressed in a black suit, with a grey tie and white shirt, looked at the ground and appeared close to tears when he was brought into the courtroom today. He entered the glass-fronted dock at court and spoke only to confirm his name, address and date of birth.

Philip Astbury, prosecuting, applied for reporting restrictions to ban the naming of the six people, including two children, in the charges.

The hearing was adjourned after seven minutes for district judge Paul Healey to consider the application, with the defendant taken from the dock and back to the cells.

No charges were put to Doyle, with the hearing expected to resume shortly before a further hearing later today at Liverpool Crown Court.



 
Doyle was initially held on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs.

But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) confirmed he had not been charged with any drug-related offences after he was quizzed for almost 72 hours.

Doyle, dressed in a black suit, with a grey tie and white shirt, looked at the ground and appeared close to tears when he was brought into the courtroom today. He entered the glass-fronted dock at court and spoke only to confirm his name, address and date of birth.

Philip Astbury, prosecuting, applied for reporting restrictions to ban the naming of the six people, including two children, in the charges.

The hearing was adjourned after seven minutes for district judge Paul Healey to consider the application, with the defendant taken from the dock and back to the cells.

No charges were put to Doyle, with the hearing expected to resume shortly before a further hearing later today at Liverpool Crown Court.



I have to say that I'm getting ever more uneasy with these reporting restrictions on naming people in court proceedings. We saw quite a few in the Lucy Letby trial. Now, yes, I know that they aren't anonymous to the court but it still doesn't sit quite right, tbh.
 

District Judge Healey has confirmed he will return to court at 11.30am.

A reminder of who is who in court. Philip Astbury appears for the prosecution, while Richard Derby represents Doyle.

Around two dozen members of the press are in court. There are also several police officers.

Doyle does not have any members of his family or friends in court.




 
I wonder why he was in custody for so long, which included an extension beyond the allowed 48 hours, for some fairly standard charges?

Edit: 24hrs, obvs!
 
Quote from post #77

"Doyle does not have any members of his family or friends in court."

Yeah
It says a lot!!!

JMO
That was my initial thought but I'm not sure you can read too much into it. He has kids, I think, and I certainly don't think a courtroom where their dad is in trial is a particularly healthy place for them to be. Someone, most likely their mother is going to need to look after them.

We don't know how big any extended family is or how many friends he's got.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
65
Guests online
610
Total visitors
675

Forum statistics

Threads
624,215
Messages
18,480,799
Members
240,652
Latest member
Lexi_
Back
Top