
Taxi driver jailed over Southport disorder loses bid to challenge sentence
After the attack, McIntyre set up a Telegram channel called 'Southport Wake Up' and shared content from a site called Tommy Robinson/Britain First/For Britain about a protest in Southport on July 30.
At the Court of Appeal on Thursday, barristers for McIntyre claimed his sentence should have been lower as he was not given enough credit for his guilty pleas.
Dismissing the appeal bid in his final oral judgment before retirement, Lord Justice Holroyde said: 'It was for the judge to decide what reduction was appropriate.'
He continued: 'It is not arguable that the total sentence was excessive, let alone manifestly so.'
After the Southport attack, McIntyre said in one post: 'Rise Up English Lads. 8pm tomorrow St Luke's Rd Southport.'
Hours before violence broke out in the town on July 30, he wrote: 'Message to All … Stand in our way, even if you're just doing your job … prepare to fall.'
Liverpool Crown Court heard in January that McIntyre's phone was in the area of St Luke's Road in Southport at 7pm on July 30, and the car he was later arrested in was also in the area when the disorder took place.
Over the following days, McIntyre congratulated those involved in the disorder and shared information about immigration advisers.
He was arrested in Liverpool on August 8, with a knife found hidden in the boot of his car.
The court heard that when his home was searched, officers found weapons and a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Sentencing him, Judge Neil Flewitt KC said McIntyre was 'motivated by racial hatred' and was 'prominent' among those spreading misinformation after the attack.
McIntyre's jail term is believed to be the second-longest handed down for disorder related to the Southport attack, with the longest believed to be nine years.
On Thursday, Julian Nutter, for McIntyre, said he should have been given a shorter sentence to reflect his guilty pleas.
He said the case did not concern an offender who had 'provided the means' to commit offences or 'instructions to make those means'.
He added: 'The sentence should have been about a year less.'
Arthur Gibson, for the Crown Prosecution Service, told the hearing in London that the evidence of McIntyre's offending 'was there for the defendant to accept or deny as he so wished'.
He continued: 'There were guilty pleas entered, but subsequent to that, even, the applicant was not accepting his full responsibility.
'The learned judge was entitled to use his discretion in determining a reduction in sentence for pleas of guilty.'
In the Court of Appeal's ruling, Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Sir Robin Spencer, said: 'The applicant incited violence and criminal damage by many people at different locations on multiple occasions.
'He thereby threatened public safety, promoted widespread damage to property and exposed police officers to serious injury.
'He boasted about the scale of disorder which disfigured Southport and other towns and cities. Throughout, his conduct was racially motivated.
'If the applicant wanted greater credit for his pleas, he could and should have entered those pleas at an earlier stage.
'He did not do so. Instead, he delayed until it suited him to enter them, and even then, he continued to contest aspects of the claims against him.'
McIntyre, formerly of Rufford, near Ormskirk, watched proceedings by videolink from HMP Garth in Lancashire.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions
Millions of drivers were hoping for a payout over secret car finance charges ⚖️ Sign up to the weekly Cost Of Living newsletter. Saving tips, deals and money hacks. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Supreme Court rules lenders not liable for 'hidden' car finance commission payments Decision overturns Court of Appeal ruling that had backed drivers' right to compensation Around 2m cars a year are bought on finance, many with now-banned commission deals FCA to decide within six weeks if it will set up a central compensation scheme Tens of thousands of complaints remain on hold until the watchdog makes its move A landmark ruling made today (August 1) has determined whether millions of motorists are entitled to compensation over 'hidden' commissions on car finance deals. The case centres on hire-purchase agreements signed before 2021, where car dealers acting as credit brokers received commission from lenders — without fully informing the customer. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In October 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that these undisclosed payments were unlawful and that affected drivers should be compensated. The case was brought by three motorists who were unaware dealers were being paid by lenders for arranging their finance. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court, calling it an 'egregious error'. New and secondhand cars for sale on a dealership forecourt in Ellesmere Port in 2023 (Photo:) | Getty Images The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also weighed in, arguing the earlier judgment 'goes too far'. But the three motorists had fought to uphold the original ruling. The Supreme Court's decision will have major implications for car finance customers across the UK. But what exactly did it rule, and is there compensation coming down the road for millions of drivers? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What is car finance? Around two million cars are bought on finance every year — but many drivers may have unknowingly paid too much in interest due to now-banned commission deals between lenders and dealerships. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) gave sales staff a financial incentive to hike up your interest rate, leaving you with a higher monthly bill. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) banned these deals in 2021, but it's now deciding whether affected drivers should be compensated. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the meantime, tens of thousands of complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman or through the courts were paused while the watchdog reviewed the issue. What has the Supreme Court ruled? Millions of motorists will miss out on potential compensation after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments made to car dealers as part of finance agreements. The UK's highest court overturned a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal, which had found that 'secret' commission deals — made before 2021 without the customer's fully informed consent — were unlawful. The Supreme Court sided with the lenders. Delivering the decision, Lord Reed said the appeals were allowed, ending hopes of a wider compensation scheme for millions of car finance customers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Is there compensation coming? As of now, compensation is not guaranteed, but it's still possible, depending on what the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) decides next. Though the Supreme Court's ruling on sided with the lenders, meaning they are not automatically liable for hidden commission payments - a blow to many compensation hopes - the FCA is still investigating whether drivers were treated unfairly. The FCA has said it will announce within six weeks of the ruling whether it plans to pursue a central compensation scheme. If it does go ahead, it will consult on the details for another six weeks — including who qualifies, how compensation would be calculated, and what years it would cover. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Are you struggling to make ends meet as costs continue to rise? You can now send your stories to us online via YourWorld at It's free to use and, once checked, your story will appear on our website and, space allowing, in our newspapers.


The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Miscarriage of justice watchdog investigates cases of 175 people handed abolished indefinite jail terms
The country's miscarriage of justice watchdog is investigating at least 175 cases which saw offenders, including children and young people, handed abolished indefinite jail terms. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has announced it has launched a major project to review applications from prisoners languishing on Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms. The open-ended sentences, which were scrapped in 2012 and have been described as 'psychological torture' by the UN, have left thousands trapped in jail for up to 22 times longer than their original tariff. This includes many who were children at the time of their offence and handed a type of IPP sentence for under-18s called a Detention for Public Protection (DPP) jail term. Now scores of cases are set to be reviewed by the watchdog after a string of IPP and DPP sentences were overturned by the Court of Appeal. Eight of 12 cases referred to the appeal judges for review have resulted in the sentences being quashed, reduced or substituted. This includes father-of-three Leighton Williams, who was wrongly handed an IPP sentence with a 30-month tariff for a drunken fight aged 19. He served almost 16 years under the sentence – mostly in custody – before it was quashed and replaced with a five-year determinate sentence in the Court of Appeal last year. If he had served half of that time in custody, he would have been out of prison by the time he was 22. Three appeal judges finally set him free on 9 May last year, aged 36, after finding the original sentencing judge had wrongly counted a previous offence, committed when he was 17, against him. After he was released, he told The Independent the jail term had robbed him of 16 years, adding: 'I have missed out on growing up with my friends. Going out. Getting a trade, being able to work. Just living a normal life. 'I deserved to go to jail – I understand that. There is no doubt about that. But for the length of time – I don't think you can justify that.' In a similar ruling in October, Darren Hilling's IPP sentence was quashed and substituted because the sentencing judge had failed to attach the necessary importance to his age and maturity when he committed his crime aged 21. Other victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include: Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for robbing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. At total of 2,486 IPP prisoners were still languishing in overcrowded prisons without a release date at end of June. Almost 700 of them have served at least ten years longer than their original tariff. At least 94 IPP prisoners have taken their own lives in prison as they lose hope of getting out, according to campaigners. The CCRC project will see the body – tasked with independently reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice – consider up to eight current applications from people serving IPP and DPP sentences, before systematically re-reviewing a backlog of 175 historic applications to see if they should be referred to the Court of Appeal in light of the recent judgments. 'This starts with young people principally because that's where the chink of light is from the Court of Appeal,' CCRC chair Dame Vera Baird told The Independent. Reviews will start with those who were handed indefinite jail terms as children, before looking at those aged 18 to 25, followed by those over 25. This is because sentencing judges may have considered previous convictions as children when they handed out the jail terms to adults. However there is no timeline for the wide-ranging review and Dame Vera warned the CCRC has been allocated no additional resources for the project. The news has been welcomed by campaigners, including the Howard League for Penal Reform, which this summer called for a special CCRC process for IPP prisoners in a major report on the jail term. Other recommendations put forward in the report, including seeing all remaining prisoners given a release date to work towards at their next Parole Review, are being considered by the government. Their director of campaigns Andrew Neilson said he was thrilled to see the CCRC take this 'hugely positive' step, adding: 'Justice is long overdue to the thousands of people serving IPP sentences in prisons and in the community, and we hope that this will be one of many similar policies that will finally end the suffering of this abolished sentence for good.'


Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions
Millions of drivers were hoping for a payout over secret car finance charges ⚖️ Sign up to the weekly Cost Of Living newsletter. Saving tips, deals and money hacks. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Supreme Court rules lenders not liable for 'hidden' car finance commission payments Decision overturns Court of Appeal ruling that had backed drivers' right to compensation Around 2m cars a year are bought on finance, many with now-banned commission deals FCA to decide within six weeks if it will set up a central compensation scheme Tens of thousands of complaints remain on hold until the watchdog makes its move A landmark ruling made today (August 1) has determined whether millions of motorists are entitled to compensation over 'hidden' commissions on car finance deals. The case centres on hire-purchase agreements signed before 2021, where car dealers acting as credit brokers received commission from lenders — without fully informing the customer. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In October 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that these undisclosed payments were unlawful and that affected drivers should be compensated. The case was brought by three motorists who were unaware dealers were being paid by lenders for arranging their finance. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court, calling it an 'egregious error'. New and secondhand cars for sale on a dealership forecourt in Ellesmere Port in 2023 (Photo:) | Getty Images The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also weighed in, arguing the earlier judgment 'goes too far'. But the three motorists had fought to uphold the original ruling. The Supreme Court's decision will have major implications for car finance customers across the UK. But what exactly did it rule, and is there compensation coming down the road for millions of drivers? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What is car finance? Around two million cars are bought on finance every year — but many drivers may have unknowingly paid too much in interest due to now-banned commission deals between lenders and dealerships. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) gave sales staff a financial incentive to hike up your interest rate, leaving you with a higher monthly bill. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) banned these deals in 2021, but it's now deciding whether affected drivers should be compensated. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the meantime, tens of thousands of complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman or through the courts were paused while the watchdog reviewed the issue. What has the Supreme Court ruled? Millions of motorists will miss out on potential compensation after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments made to car dealers as part of finance agreements. The UK's highest court overturned a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal, which had found that 'secret' commission deals — made before 2021 without the customer's fully informed consent — were unlawful. The Supreme Court sided with the lenders. Delivering the decision, Lord Reed said the appeals were allowed, ending hopes of a wider compensation scheme for millions of car finance customers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Is there compensation coming? As of now, compensation is not guaranteed, but it's still possible, depending on what the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) decides next. Though the Supreme Court's ruling on sided with the lenders, meaning they are not automatically liable for hidden commission payments - a blow to many compensation hopes - the FCA is still investigating whether drivers were treated unfairly. The FCA has said it will announce within six weeks of the ruling whether it plans to pursue a central compensation scheme. If it does go ahead, it will consult on the details for another six weeks — including who qualifies, how compensation would be calculated, and what years it would cover. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad