Four Liverpool parade crash victims named for first time
The two men and two women are among the 109 people who have been reported injured after a car was driven into crowds at Liverpool's Premier League victory parade last week.
Paul Doyle, 53, is charged with seven offences in connection with the collision, which happened on Water Street in the city centre as thousands of fans were gathered for the football team celebrations just after 6pm on 26 May.
The 53-year-old is accused of the unlawful wounding with intent of Simon Nash, 52, causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent to Susan Passey, 77, and Christine Seeckts, 66, and the attempted GBH of Ethan Gillard, 18.
An order preventing publication of their identities was put in place when Doyle first appeared before magistrates in Liverpool on Friday.
On Tuesday, Recorder of Liverpool Judge Andrew Menary KC lifted restrictions, which had been made under Section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
Doyle is charged with another count of wounding with intent and a second count of attempted GBH, which both relate to children, for whom reporting restrictions remain in place.
Doyle is also charged with dangerous driving. He is alleged to have driven his Ford Galaxy Titanium dangerously on roads between his home address in Burghill Road and Water Street.
He was not required to attend the court hearing on Tuesday.
On Friday, Doyle appeared before magistrates in the morning, before a crown court appearance in the afternoon.
Judge Menary fixed a trial date for 24 November and remanded the defendant in custody ahead of a plea hearing on 14 August.
Earlier this week, Merseyside Police said the number of people reported injured after the incident had risen to 109.
Four people remained in hospital on Monday.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What we know about Woolton Hall fire as girl, 14, arrested
Firefighters were called to the Grade I-listed building just after 8pm on Tuesday following reports of a blaze. Police have arrested a 14-year-old girl on suspicion of arson following a fire at Woolton Hall manor house in Liverpool. Firefighters were called to the Grade I-listed building in Woolton on the evening of Tuesday, 19 August, following reports of a blaze. Crews from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service continued to fight the fire overnight and the main body of the blaze was extinguished in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Merseyside Police said the fire "appears to have been an extremely reckless act" after the force had reports that a large number of youths were seen gathering nearby. The girl was taken into custody to be questioned and was conditionally bailed. The force is appealing for anyone who was there, knows who was there, or parents whose children were out that night to come forward. What happened? Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service was alerted to the fire at Woolton Hall just after 8pm on Tuesday, 19 August. Residents were warned to keep doors and windows closed as crews tackled the fire at the three-storey stone-built building. By 11.30pm, nine fire engines were at the scene using hoses to tackle flames at the exterior of the building. The fire caused the roof to collapse and the fire service warned residents to keep doors and windows closed as crews tackled the blaze. Crews continued to fight the fire overnight and the main body of the blaze was extinguished just before 2am the following day. Police announced they had arrested a 14-year-old girl on suspicion of arson on Thursday, 21 August. What is Woolton Hall? Woolton Hall is a privately owned historic Grade I-listed manor house in the Woolton suburb of Liverpool. It was built in 1704 by Richard Molyneux, 1st Viscount Molyneux, on land with roots tracing back to the 12th century. Initially serving as a grand residence, owner Nicholas Ashton commissioned architect Robert Adam to remodel and expand it in 1772. Over the centuries, the hall changed hands multiple times, including to shipping magnate Frederick Richards Leyland. By 1898, the McGuffie family converted it into a hydropathic hotel, which operated until 1912. In the 20th century, it functioned as a military headquarters and army hospital during the First World War, then as a girls' school run by the Convent of Notre Dame from the 1950s until 1970. The hall faced demolition threats in the 1980s but was saved and briefly restored as a community venue by local resident John Hibbert. By the early 2000s, however, it lay vacant and has been a location for break-ins and vandalism. Local campaigners have been calling for the hall to be saved for a number of years due to the condition of the building. In 2019, fire crews were called to tackle a suspected arson attack in outbuildings and worked to prevent the blaze spreading to the main building. In 2021, Woolton Hall was added to Historic England's Heritage at Risk Register as a Category A site - meaning the building is at "immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric". What is the punishment for arson? Arson falls under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, defined as deliberately or recklessly setting fire to property. The punishment depends on severity, intent and harm caused. Simple arson, where property is damaged by fire without intent to endanger life, carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if tried in the crown court. In less serious cases heard in the Magistrates' Court, where damage is valued under £5,000, penalties can include a fine, community order, or up to six months in prison. Reckless arson - where someone is reckless as to whether there is danger to life, such as setting fire to a flat in a communal block, also carries a maximum sentence of life. Arson with intent to endanger life carries a maximum of life imprisonment due to the heightened risk to life. Courts may also impose restraining orders or compensation orders for victims. For juveniles, punishments can include youth rehabilitation orders or detention in a young offender institution, with custodial sentences reserved for severe cases.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why did Lucy Connolly receive a 31-month sentence for Southport tweet?
The case of Lucy Connolly has sparked intense debate since she was jailed for inciting racial hatred online following the Southport attacks, with some criticising her sentence as excessive. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Connolly's sentence was 'harsher than the sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting'. Here, the PA news agency explores her case and 31-month prison sentence. – What offence did Lucy Connolly commit? Connolly pleaded guilty in September to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X, formerly Twitter. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.' The post was viewed 310,000 times in three and a half hours before she deleted it. The charge, contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, said that she 'published and distributed written material on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, which was threatening, abusive or insulting with the intent thereby to stir up racial hatred or whereby, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred was likely to be stirred up thereby'. The 1986 Act covers offences around incitement, public disorder and harassment, and covers both online and offline offences. – How was Lucy Connolly sentenced? Connolly admitted a 'category 1A' offence, meaning that her culpability was deemed to be in 'category A', and the harm was in 'category one' – both the highest categories. Guidelines on how to sentence offenders for several crimes are published by the Sentencing Council, an independent body which is led by the judiciary. The guidance for racial hatred offences states that those who commit such a crime are to be deemed to have high culpability if they demonstrate one or more of three factors. These are using a 'position of trust, authority or influence to stir up hatred', showing an 'intention to incite serious violence' and demonstrating 'persistent activity'. A publication is considered to cause 'category one' harm if it 'directly encourages activity which threatens or endangers life', and there is 'widespread dissemination'. The maximum sentence for the offence is seven years behind bars. Defendants who commit category 1A offences can be sentenced to between two and six years in prison, with the 'starting point' for sentences – the point used before aggravating and mitigating factors are considered – being three years. – How did the sentencing judge categorise the offence? During sentencing, Judge Melbourne Inman KC said both prosecution and defence barristers agreed that the case involved a 'category 1A' offence. He said the timing of the post was a 'further significant aggravating factor' to the offence, which came amid a 'particularly sensitive social climate'. He added that in the three and a half hours between Connolly publishing and deleting the post, it was 'widely read', having been viewed '310,000 times with 940 reposts, 58 quotes and 113 bookmarks'. In mitigation, Judge Inman said Connolly had no previous convictions, that it was her first time in prison, that she did not repeat her statement and deleted the post, and that she 'sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer'. He also said he accepted she still 'very keenly' felt the loss of her own child several years ago, and that she regretted her actions. But he also found that Connolly had 'little insight into, or acceptance of' her offending. He said: 'Whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport, you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred.' He added that the sentence he would have imposed after a trial was one of three and a half years – 42 months – but then reduced this by a quarter because of Connolly's early guilty plea, resulting in the final sentence of 31 months. – What happened when Connolly appealed against her sentence? At the Court of Appeal in May, judges dismissed a legal challenge against her sentence. In a written judgment, Lord Justice Holroyde, said: 'There is no arguable basis on which it could be said that the sentence imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive.' Lawyers for Connolly had said that Judge Inman 'miscategorised' the offence, claiming her culpability should have been deemed as 'category B', and that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating features. But Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Sheldon, ruled that Connolly 'willingly pleaded guilty' to the offence and that Judge Inman was 'entitled, and indeed obviously correct, to categorise the case as he did'. Connolly's husband, Conservative councillor Ray Connolly branded the decision 'shocking and unfair'. The Northampton town councillor, and former West Northamptonshire district councillor, said his wife had 'paid a very high price for making a mistake'. But Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer defended it earlier this year. He was asked about Connolly's case after her Court of Appeal application against her jail term was dismissed. Asked during Prime Minister's Questions whether her imprisonment was an 'efficient or fair use' of prison, Sir Keir said: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. 'I am strongly in favour of free speech, we've had free speech in this country for a very long time and we protect it fiercely. 'But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' – What has the response been to her case? Lord Young of Acton, founder and director of the Free Speech Union, which funded Connolly's legal challenge, said: 'The fact that Lucy Connolly has spent more than a year in prison for a single tweet that she quickly deleted and apologised for is a national scandal.' Conservative and Reform politicians have decried what they call 'two-tier justice' in her case comparing it with that of Ricky Jones, a suspended Labour councillor who was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder at an anti-racism rally in the wake of the Southport murders. Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice has also proposed 'Lucy's Bill' after Connolly's case in Parliament, which would allow people to mount mass appeals against punishments they deem to be too severe or lenient.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Girl, 14, arrested on suspicion of arson after manor house blaze
A 14-year-old girl has been arrested on suspicion of arson after a blaze at a Grade I-listed manor house. Merseyside Police said the fire at Woolton Hall, Liverpool, on Tuesday evening 'appears to have been an extremely reckless act' after the force had reports that a large number of youths were seen gathering nearby. The girl was taken into custody to be questioned and was conditionally bailed. Detective Inspector Daniel McWhinnie said: 'This appears to have been an extremely reckless act at a historic building that has stood at the site for hundreds of years. 'We know the community will be rightly shocked by what happened and we are determined to find all those responsible.' The force is appealing for anyone who was there, knows who was there, or parents whose children were out that night to come forward. The hall, which is privately owned, was built in 1704. Local campaigners have been calling for it to be saved for a number of years over the condition of the building. In 2019, fire crews were called to tackle a suspected arson attack in outbuildings and worked to prevent the blaze spreading to the main building.