Liverpool Parade Attacker Sentenced To 21 Years And 6 Months In Bbc

Kenji Sato

-Apr 6, 2026, 2:58 AM

liverpool parade attacker sentenced to 21 years and 6 months in bbc

Paul Doyle sentencing latest: Liverpool parade attacker jailed for 21 years Paul Doyle has been jailed for 21 years and six months after admitting a total of 31 charges, having driven his car into crowds of Liverpool FC fans during a victory parade Paul Doyle has been sentenced to 21 years and six months in prison after admitting to a total of 31 charges, having driven his car into crowds of Liverpool FC fans during a victory parade.

The 54-year-old, of Burghill Road in West Derby, admitted a total of 31 charges last month, having driven his car into crowds of fans during the celebrations earlier this year. More than 100 pedestrians, ranging from babies to a 78-year-old woman, were injured after being struck by the Ford Galaxy on Water Street in Liverpool city centre shortly after 6pm on Monday, May 26, as what was meant to be a day of joy turned into scenes of devastation and terror.

Fifty casualties required hospital treatment in the aftermath of the appalling incident, although they were later discharged. Doyle tearfully changed his pleas to guilty on the day he was due to go on trial at Liverpool Crown Court. His sentencing took place over the course of two days on Monday, December 15 and Tuesday, December 16.

Judge Andrew Menary KC said “the truth” in this case, as captured on Doyle’s dashcam and multiple CCTV cameras, was “you lost your temper” and tried to force a way through the crowd, “regardless of the consequences”. “By you admission of guilt, you admit you intended to cause serious harm to achieve that end, even to children.” Mayor of the Liverpool City Region Steve Rotheram said he hoped the sentencing would bring “some measure of closure” to victims.

He said: Specialist prosecutor James Allison, of CPS Mersey Cheshire’s Complex Casework Unit, added: In seven minutes of dangerous driving, Doyle, a middle-aged family man, used that vehicle as a weapon hitting more than one hundred people, including children, babies and the elderly. When it eventually ended, he had trapped some of them underneath his vehicle.He not only injured many people, but he also generated horror and chaos on what was meant to be a day of celebration and joyfulness.The reason why he did it?

The truth is as simple as it is awful, Paul Doyle lost his temper and, in a rage, drove into people, intending to cause them serious harm.

Speaking outside court, Merseyside Police senior investigating officer Detective Chief Inspector John Fitzgerald said: Paul Doyle is today starting a lengthy prison sentence as a consequence of his actions on 26 May this year.It is difficult to comprehend the devastating impact the events of that day have had, and continue to have, on so many people.On what should have been a day of celebration for the city, Doyle chose to act in an aggressive and dangerous manner with no regard for the safety and wellbeing of other people.No prison sentence will be able to undo his actions on that day or heal those who continue to suffer physically and psychologically as a result of what they endured and witnessed on the streets of the city.

Judge Menary says: “I wish to formally commend Mr Daniel Barr. His actions on that day were outstandingly brave. He ran towards the danger, entered a moving vehicle and brought it to a halt, preventing further injury and possibly saving lives. “I make a High Sheriff’s award for bravery together with a monetary award of £250. “Its also right to acknowledge the bravery and professional commitment of the emergency services. Their actions undoubtedly prevent further harm and serious injury.

“Finally I wish to record my recognition of the work undertaken by the investigation team.” That brings the sentencing hearing to a close. Doyle receives a total sentence of 21-and-a-half years. He responded by closing his eyes briefly. He then sits staring ahead of him, towards the judge. This sentence was reduced from one of 24 years after trial. Doyle is banned from driving for three years, extended to 16 years and 10 months to take into account the period he will spend behind bars.

He will be required to pass an extended retest before being allowed back on the roads. The judge tells Doyle he may leave. He is led to the cells by four dock officers, showing no further reaction as he did so. The judge says of Doyle’s guilty pleas: “I appreciate this will have been a difficult decision and the circumstances in which you have been detained have not been straightforward. But the evidence against you was overwhelming.

You could have given an indication of acceptance of responsibility much earlier than you did.” As such, the judge says the credit will be limited to 10 per cent. Judge Menary says there will not be a finding of dangerousness in Doyle’s case. All sentences on each count will run concurrently. The judge tells Doyle that the starting point for a category A1 offence is 12 years up to 16 years. He continues: “Of course I'm concerned here with not just a single offence.

You have a number of previous convictions. Between the ages of 18 and 22 you accumulated a number of convictions, including for offences of violence, one of which resulted in a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. Those were interwoven with your military service, from which you were discharged. “Although you are not a man of previous good character and perhaps have always had issues with your temper, you have not committed another offence for many years.

“The offences were committed during a public celebration in the centre of Liverpool, causing significant and lasting harm to the reputation of the city. There was an adverse impact on city centre businesses, and the offences were committed in the presence of children. Some victims were very young and others were elderly. “As I've observed after a troubling start to your adult life you did turn your life around. You went to university and have had a successful career. You're married [with children].

I’ve read a substantial number of character references written by family members, friends, and colleagues. They come from people who have known you for many years. “Collectively those references describe you as a devoted husband and father, a reliable and supportive family member and a person who has lived a disciplined life for many years. You are described as kind and hard working. Several speak of your professional success and your involvement in community and sporting activities with children.

These people are bewildered as everyone else with the shocking events of the 26th of May. “I accept all of that and recognise that the sentence I’m bound to pass will have a devastating and profound impact on you and your wife and children.

I'm afraid this evidence of positive good character can have only limited effect when the court is dealing with offences of this gravity.” Judge Menary continues: “The truth was captured on your own dashcam is that you lost your temper in a rage, determined to force your way through the crowd regardless of the consequences. You admit that you intended to cause serious harm to achieve that end, even to children. “It is common ground and I have no doubt that this was category A offending in terms of culpability.

That is indicated by a combination of factors. All of your victims were vulnerable because they were pedestrians of all ages and abilities confronted by a vehicle travelling at speeds. You used your motor vehicle as a highly dangerous weapon or weapon equivalent. When deliberately driven into a crowd, the car was capable of inflicting grave and fatal injuries. That's precisely the risk who chose to create.

You had repeated opportunities to stop by and chose instead to continue regardless “Some of your victims have injuries in the highest level of harm. Others suffered injury falling just short of this level of harm.” Judge Menary tells the court he wants to mention every victim named on the indictment by name and briefly outlines all counts on the indictment and the injuries the complainant suffered both at the parade and on the present day.

The judge continues: “Your vehicle only came to a halt due to the heroic actions of a member of the public, Daniel Barr, who jumped into the back seat and moved the gear stick into a park position. Even then, witnesses heard you continuing to depress the accelerator preventing you from driving on. His actions prevented further injury and may well have saved lives. “It’s almost impossible to think how any right thinking person could act as you did. It defies ordinary understanding.

This wasn't a terrorist attack as some feared at the time. You were not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. You claimed in police interviews to have acted in fear for your life. That account was demonstrably false. The position should be stated clearly. The crowd did not cause this incident. “They reacted to it, faced with a car driving directly at them and striking multiple people. They had no idea who you were or whether this was a deliberate attack of an even more serious nature.

Their reactions were the instinctive actions of frightened people desperate to stop a moving threat that they couldn't understand. “Those were not actions of aggression but acts of fear. The chaos that unfolded was solely as a result of your driving. Your actions caused horror and devastation on a scale not previously encountered by this court. “In reality, well over 100 people were struck and injured, many seriously.

Parents and children, students, tourists, passersby, were all caught up by what many believed in the moment to be a mass panic terrorist attack. “Across the victim person statement there emerges a consistent pattern of trauma, nightmares, panic attacks. Many victims now avoid crowds or busy roads and city centres. Some avoid even family gatherings. “Police officers have been left with PTSD, intrusive memories and significant disruption. Children have developed anxiety nightmares.

“What should have been a day of communal celebration has instead been left as a lasting legacy of fear, injury and loss across this community. The overall harm is exceptional,parents were convinced their children had been killed. Many searched desperately for loved ones, not knowing if they were alive. “Your actions also had a significant impact on the wider city. A large sterile crime scene had to be established, forcing businesses to close. Some premises became makeshift triage centres.” Judge Menary will now turn to sentence Doyle.

He tells the defendant that his “prolonged and shockingly bad driving” led to people being “injured or put at serious risk”. Judge Menary says: “Your guilty pleas were entered at a very late stage and attract very little credit. They represent an acceptance of responsibility by you. “The events of the 26th of May were meant to be a day of great civic pride for the city of Liverpool. Tens of thousands of people filled the city centre to celebrate the victory parade.

“As it ended and people began to make their way home, Water Street and Dale Street became densely crowded with pedestrians. You were aware of [traffic management] measured because you had followed them earlier in the day “You drove your Ford Galaxy from your home to the city centre in order to collect friends. For no reason other than impatience and arrogance, your driving into the city was routinely dangerous.

“You undertook vehicles at speed, you drove through traffic lights at a busy junction when they were clearly showing red against you. “You entered Dale Street at 5.54pm that afternoon. From the outset your driving was aggressive and dangerous. You frightened pedestrians shouting obscenities. At the point where you were required to filter right, you decided not to do so. “Instead you made a decision to drive into the heart of the crowd.

You used your vehicle in a manner that turned it into a weapon, driving into and over more than 100 people. You paused twice during this rampage. Each time you could have stopped but you chose to continue, ignoring the screams and chaos around you. The footage is truly shocking. “It shows you quite deliberately accelerating into groups of fans time and time again. You struck people head on, knocked others onto the bonnet, crushed prams and forced others to scatter in terror.

You ploughed on at speed, violently knocking people aside or running over them, person after person after person. “Several victims became trapped under the vehicle. Others were thrown into the air or propelled across the ground. Witnesses describe you continuing to press the accelerator even when people were visibly trapped under the car.” Mr Csoka says: “The defendant has been held in difficult conditions which have required vigilance on his part. The events at that prison have been well published. I will say no more about it.

He was kept some distance from his wife and family. Ordinarily, those are factors that would anchor him to stability and reality. He's been in a difficult environment, not conducive to self reflection. “There is an exception to the usual reduction for guilty plea on the first day of the trial in the guideline. It relates broadly to understanding and advice.

We ask the court based on the unusual circumstances of this case and the inherent difficulty in a man who led his life so differently, we ask the court to exercise its discretion and grant more credit for his guilty pleas than would ordinarily apply. “For the last 32 years the defendant has led his life very differently from what the court has heard about his life up to the age of 22. Upon his release from prison, he transformed his life by going to university.

He’s worked hard since then, had a successful career in IT, raised a family with his wife. They have three children. “The court has been provided with a large number of character references. He was very active in his community. He's engaged in a number of occasions with charity fundraising activities. All of those people speak of a kind, generous and selfless man. It's part of the paradox of this case that how they know him is so different to the way he behaved.

“They all find his actions incomprehensible and so utterly unlike the man that they know. Again perhaps that fed into the difficulty in the defendant coming to recognise and accepting what he did. “My Lord, we can only emphasise again the deep sorrow and shame that the defendant feels. We accept that those are only words and it will provide no comfort to those who were hurt and those who suffered. “My Lord, this is an extremely unusual case factually and there is a degree of incomprehensibility about it.

My Lord, that’s the extent of the mitigation unless there are further matters you'd like me to deal with.” Judge Menary replies: “Mr Csoka, this is a difficult case. I’m very grateful to you for my submissions.” Mr Csoka continues: “The defendant recognises it’s fortunate the consequences of his actions weren't as grave as they might have been. His actions weren't planned. His conduct has been difficult for him to understand and accept. “It’s taken him several months for him to recognise mentally what he did.

He's appealed by his own conduct, the spiralling effect of his conduct was utterly unexpected for him and utterly unexpected for all those who know him well. “There has been a period of denial, whether that can be categorised as subconscious denial is perhaps a moot point. There clearly has been an avoidance of reality. That's a well recognised phenomenon when an individual is involved in an event such as this. “There's been an ongoing and emerging process of realisation.

After the pre-trial review the court was asked to allow for a day of reflection before the trial started properly and the case was opened. The defendant wasn't able immediately to reconcile the man he's been for the last 30 years with the way he behaved on the 26th of May 2025. In the same way that nobody who knows him well would believe it, not could he for some time.

“My Lord, additionally in relation to delay, as my Lord knows there was a delay in obtaining a representation order. There was a well publicised hack of the legal aid system. Additionally, the location of the defendant meant conferences with him were difficult. The court came to the assistance of the defence and ultimately sufficient conference time was made available. It was made possible for the evidence to be provided to the defendant “The case was given an early listing for very good reasons.

This served to truncate what would ordinarily be the pre-trial period. We ask your Lordship to consider in isolation the period of time between the events and the guilty pleas and to consider whether that's substantially out of kilter with the time between those events in many other cases.” Mr Csoka continues: “The defendant accepts that it's extremely fortunate that the consequences of his actions were not as grave as they might have been. It’s accepted that some of the victims fall into category one.

Equally some of the victims in this case fall with category two. “We accept in relation to the guideline it is not intended to deal with circumstances such as those in this case. The facts of this case are very different to what's envisaged in the guideline. To the extent that the guideline is of assistance, we submit that the category one harm injuries are not at the very top of the range set out in the guideline and most of the injuries are in category two of the guideline.

We accept to look at it in those terms is artificial. The court must look at the events globally. We accept when looked at globally the culpability increases. “This was the virtual certainty caused by the defendant’s driving as opposed to any long standing desire by him to cause serious injury to a large number of people. We accept the application of the guideline is difficult on these facts. We make the submission that clearly the court will wish to go beyond the top end of the range.

We make the submission that the court does not need to go substantially beyond the top end of that range.” Doyle’s mitigation continues: “The guideline is to a certain extent relativistic, and any mitigation in relative terms is deeply unattractive. But what we would say is ordinarily the guideline is dealing with situations where there are deep and calculated acts designed by a desire to cause serious injury. “What happened was to a large degree incomprehensible.

We accept that the vehicle can be described, as the prosecution has, as a weapon equivalent. However, often, a weapon equivalent is something that has been selected for use as a weapon. We contend in the circumstances of the guideline, of course the manner in which he drove meant that the car became dangerous, but this is not a case as is often the case that it is an article made or adapted for such use.

“There must, we submit, some degree of diminishing culpability when a vehicle has not been selected or taken to the scene to be used as a weapon. There are cases where a vehicle has been selected for use as a weapon. It's clear Mr Doyle did not have the car with him for such use. The paradox is that he went to the scene with his car in order to be kind to a friend and his friend's children, not to use the vehicle as a weapon.

“We accept some of the victims were vulnerable. However it may be a minor matter in mitigation but this is not a case in which the defendant has chosen to injure vulnerable victims. There are often cases where victims are selected because they are vulnerable. We don't intend to understate their inherent vulnerability. We simply seek to emphasise this is not a case where there was targeting.

“It must be said when looking at individuals, sadly much graver and much serious injuries can be before the court and are often before the court. I don't in any sense intend to make submissions that diminish the very clear suffering of all those hurt. But looked at individually there are often cases before the court where injuries are particularly grave, such as paralysis, blindness, loss of limbs.

The very top end of the sentencing guideline is intended to deal with individual injuries of a particularly grave nature.” Court is reassembled and Mr Csoka rises. He begins: “We should make it clear the defendant is horrified by what he did, horrified by the consequences of what he did. He's remorseful, ashamed and deeply sorry for all those who were hurt or suffered. He accepts full responsibility. He expects no sympathy. Nevertheless it's important we emphasise his remorse.

“The defendant’s guilty plea shows he accepts that his driving caused the crowd to react in the way they did towards him. Nevertheless we observe that the attack on his car that was understandable in the circumstances must have been inherently frightening. “It includes the door being opened, a vessel being thrown at him, the smashing of the rear window. However his decision to turn left towards the crowds wasn't warranted, nor was it proportionate. It was a quick decision made by him in those circumstances.

Once he continued to drive, serious injury was inevitable. It was obvious that that was foreseen by him by the words he was saying. “The paradox of that day is that he was doing a favour for a friend. It was an ordinary day. He did not have any motive in the ordinary sense to cause serious injury nor did he have a desire in the ordinary sense to cause serious injury.

This is a case where the consequence of his decisions was that serious injury was a virtual certainty and it was foreseen by him. It was not a case where there was a motive and desire to cause serious injury.” The court will now take a short break before hearing submissions from the defence counsel. Mr Greaney continues: “There are, furthermore, statutory aggravating factors. The defendant has previous convictions including for offences of violence, although this factor needs to be balanced to reflect the matters we drew attention to earlier.

“The offence against James Vernon was committed against an emergency worker acting in the exercise of functions as such a worker. James Vernon was working as a paramedic when the defendant drove the Galaxy into him. “The seriousness of the defendant’s offending is further aggravated by the following factors. The offence occurred during an occasion of public celebration and had an adverse impact on the community in Merseyside and beyond. “A number of the victims were young and others were elderly.

The offence involved the use of a weapon, namely the vehicle. “The offences were committed in the presence of very many children. The defendant had opportunities to stop which he did not take. The conduct of the defendant had an adverse impact on the business community in the city centre of Liverpool. “The prosecution is unaware of any factors going materially to reduce the seriousness of the defendant’s offending, but this is principally a matter for the defence.” Mr Greaney will now turn to the sentencing guidelines.

He says: “The maximum sentence for the offences in counts 3 to 31 is life imprisonment and there is a definitive guideline. “The guideline requires the court to follow several steps. At steps one and two, the court is required to determine the offence category and then the starting for sentence and category range. “The prosecution submits that in respect of each offence viewed individually, the culpability of the defendant is high: “Firstly, some of the victims were vulnerable by reason of age.

Some were young: Teddy Eveson was nearly 6 months.” Others were aged seven months, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Mr Greaney continues: “Some were elderly: Stefan Dettlaf was aged 73 and Susan Passey was aged 77. Furthermore, all the victims in counts 3 to 31 were in a sense vulnerable because they were pedestrians at whom a large vehicle was driven.

“The second matter which places the defendant’s conduct into the high culpability bracket it because in the crown’s submission he used a highly dangerous weapon because He drove a vehicle weighing not far short of two tonnes into and over members of the public. “Furthermore, the prosecution submits that among those injured, some suffered harm that places their cases into harm category 1. Some suffered lasting or substantial injury.

“Accordingly, in accordance with the definitive guideline, there are individual counts which, even if they stood alone, would attract a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment, with a sentencing range of 10 to 16 years’ imprisonment. “It hardly needs to be said, however, that on our facts, these counts do not stand alone. The defendant caused grievous bodily harm to nine people with intent and wounded three others with intent, and he attempted to cause grievous bodily harm with intent to 17 others.

“That is bad enough, but those 29 were not, of course, all of those who were injured.

The charges were selected to make a trial manageable but also provide my lord with adequate powers of sentence.” With 134 victims having reported being injured during the incident, Mr Greaney adds: “The prosecution submits that the sheer scale of the offending of Paul Doyle on 26th May 2025 and the extent of injury caused by him takes his case well outside the sentence range that would be appropriate for any single case.” Mr Greaney continues: “Between the date of this second offence contrary to section 20 and the date of sentence, the defendant committed further offences.

“In Scotland, on or about 17th December 1993, he carried out a minor offence of dishonesty and breached the peace. These represent the final offences of which he was convicted until his offences on the day of the parade. “The defendant was, by the date of those offences in Scotland, aged 22. He appeared before the Aberdeen Sheriff Court on 20th December 1993. Sentence was deferred to 4th February 1994, on which date he was placed on probation and made the subject of a short community service order.

“It follows that between the ages of 18 and 22, the defendant was convicted of a series of offences, including offences of serious violence. As a matter of principle, those convictions tend to aggravate the seriousness of the current offending. “However, as against that, the prosecution recognises that in the 30 years between his release from prison in May 1995 and his dreadful actions on 26th May 2025, the defendant had taken steps to live a positive and productive life. During that 30-year period, he was convicted of no offences.

He went to university. He worked, including in positions of responsibility. He had a family. Those efforts to rehabilitate himself after a difficult early adulthood only serve to make more shocking, and tragic what he did in Liverpool that day this May.” Doyle remains hunched over in the dock and now seems tearful again.

Mr Greaney says: “On the 22nd of July 1992, so shortly after his conviction for the offence contrary to section 20 but before his discharge, the defendant was convicted of a military offence that equated to criminal damage. He was punished by seven days restriction of privileges. The service records reveal that he damaged a shop window.

“On the 3rd of November 1994, so after his discharge, and while serving for a short period in the Royal Marine Reserve, the defendant was again convicted of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 along with an offence of using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour contrary to section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. He was sentenced at Preston Crown Court to a total of 12 months’ imprisonment.

“A search of the PNC reveals that the offences occurred on the 2nd of July 1993 and involved the defendant biting off the ear of another man in a fight. When interviewed by the police in connection with the current offences, the defendant explained that he had become involved in a drunken fight with sailors.” Doyle sits with his head bowed.

Mr Greaney says: “But before we get to that , on the 2nd of February 1992, so after the offence contrary to section 20 was committed but before his conviction and sentence, the defendant was convicted of the military offence of using violence to his superior officer. He was punished by a fine of £250 but no further details of this offence are available in the service records or elsewhere.

“On the 13th of February 1992, again after the offence contrary to section 20 was committed but before his conviction, the defendant was convicted of the military offence of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. He was punished by a fine of £250 but no further details of this offence are available.

“On the 31st of March 1992, again after the section 20 offence had been committed but before his conviction and sentence, no doubt because of his military offending, the defendant was placed on a 6-month formal warning for SNLR discharge. That is to say, after the series of offences, he was put on a six-month formal warning for discharge. “Then came the conviction for the offence contrary to section 20 on the 2nd of July 1992.

The effect of this conviction was to cause senior officers within the Royal Marines to confirm the defendant’s SNLR discharge. As we have explained, the defendant sought to challenge that discharge but was unsuccessful in doing so.

As a result, his discharge took place just over six months later, on the 11th of January 1993.” Mr Greaney continues: “The defendant has both civilian and service convictions: “First, on the 12th of December 1989, when in the Royal Engineers and aged 18, the defendant committed a military offence that equated with common assault. Two days later, he was made subject to seven days’ detention. “On the 28th of March 1990, at Newport Magistrates’ Court, when still aged 18, the defendant was fined for a minor offence of dishonesty.

The Police National Computer, the PNC, shows that he was an army apprentice at this time, so this offence too was during his time in the Royal Engineers. “The next offence in time appears to have occurred on the 31st of October 1991. By this date, the defendant had enlisted in the Royal Marines, and the chronology indicates that the offence was committed at the end of his 32-week training period at Commando Training Centre in Lympstone.

“The PNC record indicates that the defendant struck another person several times in the face with a clenched fist. In interview, following his arrest in connection with the current offences, the offences in May of this year, the defendant said that he had a scuffle with men in a nightclub which resulted in him being thrown out. The men he had scuffled with were waiting for him, and he got the better of them, he said.

“The defendant pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. And on the 2nd of July 1992, he was fined £45 by the Exeter Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay compensation of £1,500. The fact of that conviction is relevant for reasons to which we will turn. It’s linked to his discharge.“ Mr Greaney will now address the court on Doyle’s previous convictions. He says: “We will turn next to the defendant’s antecedents. The defendant was born on 4th November 1971.

He was aged 53 at the date of his offending and is now aged 54. “As a young man, the defendant served with the Royal Engineers and then with the Royal Marines for a period. It is important to understand something about that service. That is so for several reasons, including, first, because the defendant’s record of criminal convictions, to which we will turn, is interwoven with his military service.

“Second, because the media has repeatedly referred to the defendant as a former marine in its reporting, and there is a strong public interest in the public understanding that the evidence reveals no link between the defendant’s military service and his crimes. “The defendant enlisted in the Royal Marines on the 11th of March 1991, at the age of 19, following a short period in the Royal Engineers. “Neither during his period in the Royal Engineers nor during his period in the Royal Marines did the defendant see active service.

He signed up for 22 years’ service in the Marines, but with the right to give 18 months’ notice from the 11th of September 1993. That meant that the earliest he should have been capable of leaving the marines was the 11th of March 1995, four years after he joined. In the event, the defendant was discharged on 20th January 1993, just 22 months after enlisting, so more than two years before the earliest point at which he ought to have left.

“The defendant was discharged from the Royal Marines on a basis that is commonly referred to as SNLR, or services no longer required. In other words, the Royal Marines no longer wished to retain him. The service records reveal that the defendant challenged his SNLR discharge, but was unsuccessful in doing so.

Understanding the reason why the defendant was discharged takes us to his convictions.” Mr Greaney rises and says: “The impact of the defendant’s actions on the people most directly affected by them is, of course, the most important aspect of the consequences of that day. However, the impact on the community as a whole and on the business community should not be overlooked. “Superintendent Charlotte Irlam has policing responsibility for Liverpool city centre.

She has provided a witness statement in which she draws attention to the impact on businesses in the fragile hospitality sector and beyond if the defendant’s crimes that evening and during the day and days that followed. She draws attention to the selfless actions of the restaurants Riva Blu and Mowgli in allowing their premises to be used as casualty triage centres.

The final paragraph of Superintendent Irlam’s statement is important, and we will read it out.” The statement reads: “Despite the gravity of impact this has had on the businesses, I commend those involved for their strong sense of community and resilience that has been shown.

These were truly horrific circumstances, but we have seen the community come together, acting selflessly in the aftermath to support those who had been injured in the incident, but also the support to the emergency services through their patience and understanding as the area was able to return to normality.” Finally, a statement is read out on behalf of Daniel Barr, the man who jumped into Paul Doyle’s car in order to pull the parking brake on.

The 41-year-old says: I have had my fair share of high pressure, traumatic and dangerous situations. These include tours of Iraq as a soldier, actively searching for IEDs, as well as other struggles and traumas since leaving the forces. All of these traumas I have kept underlying for years, I have managed to keep them under wraps to a degree.

But since that day it has brought everything to the surface, and I find I can no longer put a mask on and carry on as normal.I am angry when I go to bed. I don’t sleep very well, if at all. I wake up angry. Big things don’t bother me, but little things do. I am quick to anger and slow to hide it.

I avoid socializing and I am more withdrawn, and I avoid working in teams as I struggle to take on board the simplest of instructions and patiently deal with colleagues. I forget appointments and having a timing to keep to stresses me out, and I can’t focus on anything else that day. Because of all this I have taken some time out of work, which has now financially impacted me. I am behind on payments, so I am only just keeping my head above water.

I have a stringent work ethic and don’t like asking for help, so it has become difficult, and I am on the verge of getting into debt.I start a task, get distracted by a thought of another, start another task, repeat again until the day is gone, I am tired but no further towards completing anything. This frustrates people around me and causes me great embarrassment and then I avoid further interactions. I am constantly somewhere else in my head.

I cannot keep up with conversation and generally cause offence to friends and family. My family have noticed this change in me. I snap at them and can be aggressive in my tone and thoughts. I have heard discussions where comments have been passed about my demeanour. This has put a strain on family relationships as I get the impression they are walking on eggshells when talking to or engaging me.

I generally feel no sense of purpose and don’t know what to do, and this is without having fully come to terms with what happened that day. I was nervous about having to go to court. All I focused on was my part in that day.

I tried to avoid hearing or reading too much about it so I really don’t know much else about exactly what he did that day, but maybe now I can start to find out some more which might help me process it and deal with it.

A 16-year-old boy says in his statement: I was really frightened because I couldn’t see my nan and grandad or my aunty and uncle and I was really scared that they had been hit because I saw people laid on the ground trapped under the car. I was that scared, I felt sick.For the first week I didn’t sleep hardly at all because I kept having nightmares.

A couple of weeks before we went to Liverpool, I started an apprenticeship with my uncle to be a joiner, and I couldn’t work the week after it happened but the company I worked for said they understood why I couldn’t go.When I did go back to work, I couldn’t concentrate because I kept having thoughts about what happened and in the end my boss said it wasn’t working out, so I lost my apprenticeship. Doyle sits with his head bowed and seems tearful.

The statement adds: This has affected my life massively because now I feel really nervous in crowds, I get really scared when I have to cross a busy road, even at pelican crossings because I am scared that a car might go out of control.I would say that I used to be a very confident person, but I don’t hardly go out now.

I used to be able to stay in bed until 10 or 11 now I get up at 5 or 6 every day because I don’t sleep very much. I am not confident doing anything anymore and that scares me. Paul Fitzsimons, aged 40, says: What I saw that day will never leave me. In that moment I thought it was a terrorist attack.I remember seeing a pram, and I can’t get that out of my head. At the time I thought the baby would be dead.

I saw so many people on the floor who I thought were dead, I was shocked to learn that nobody was.For the first couple of months, I couldn't process it. I was scared to drive, and I have since developed so many fears that I can't rationalise.I have regular nightmares. The car is targeting me, but I am the one to blame.

These nightmares then affect the rest of my day.Before the 26th of May, I was confident, outgoing and adventurous but this has changed me massively, it has made me wary and cautious of the world. My mindset has changed, I'm scared of things I wasn't scared of beforehand, and I think about it every single day. Rhys Jones, aged 30, says in his statement: I no longer feel comfortable being in busy places. I become very anxious and often have to leave halfway through.

When it happened, I lost two weeks’ worth of wages and since then I have had to give up my job because I struggle to lift things and use my hand properly.I find it difficult to do simple tasks and to take part in activities with my one-year-old son, which is very upsetting for me. Every day is a struggle, I still haven’t regained feeling in my hand, and it hurts whenever anything touches it.Since the incident, my nerves have been through the roof.

I struggle daily with anxiety, pain and frustration. I am not the same person I was before it happened, and it continues to affect my life in every way. The next statement will be read on behalf of 31-year-old Dean Townsend.

Referencing a man who left the public gallery during yesterday’s hearing, Mr Astbury says: “It was Mr Towsend who was yesterday taken ill in the public gallery and isn’t here today because of that.” The statement is then read: I struggle to get out of bed and I can’t afford to heat my house due to the fact that I have been unable to work since this happened.

I rely on benefits, and I am just about managing from week to week, but this is with making significant cuts, such as my heating bill. I can no longer afford luxuries such as sky sports channels, days out to see my family or holidays.I am now stressing about Christmas and how I will pay for this.

I have not been able to visit my family since, speaking to them only via phone or text as I can’t justify paying for public transport and the way I feel right now, I worry that I have nothing to offer.Normal activities that I used to enjoy, such as seeing my nephew, going out for family meals, or a trip to the cinema are now a thing of the past. It has been almost five months since this happened and I still feel lost.

Liverpool Parade Attacker Sentenced To 21 Years And 6 Months In Bbc

People Also Asked

Liverpool parade attacker sentenced to 21 years and 6 months in ... - BBC?

Parade attacker jailed for 21 years and six months - BBC?

Liverpool parade: Paul Doyle sentenced to 21 years and six months in ...?

Paul Doyle sentencing latest: Liverpool parade attacker jailed for 21 years?

Liverpool parade crash: Paul Doyle sentenced to 21 years and six months ...?