Liverpool parade car incident

[spen666]

I see they didn’t proceed with the allegation of attempted murder, for which he was originally arrested.

BBC:

The 54-year-old admitted dangerous driving, affray, 17 charges of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent, nine counts of causing GBH with intent and three counts of wounding with intent.​

​

The Crown Prosecution Service said it was an "act of calculated violence" when Doyle drove into the crowd on the evening of the 26 May, injuring more than 130 people.​

Attempted Murder is one of the most difficult offences to prove - attempted GBH with intent carries same maximum penalty and is easier to prove. Attempted murder is something the prosecution try to avoid as there is another easier to prove offence to use

 

[Pross]

Attempted GBH with intent is an odd phrase, if you've attempted something then surely intent is already implied?

I thought he might argue that he made a wrong turn by mistake and then panicked when the crowd started attacking his car.

 

[CXRAndy]

Attempted GBH with intent is an odd phrase, if you've attempted something then surely intent is already implied?

Not necessarily.

Imagine, you got into a fight, and caused GBH on the other person


You started out with no intent to cause GBH

 

[matticus]

Attempted GBH with intent is an odd phrase, if you've attempted something then surely intent is already implied?

I'm a bit baffled too! This page seems to explain it (at some length) caveat emptor of course:
https://adleygray.com/what-constitutes-gbh-with-intent-in-the-uk/
What’s the Difference Between GBH and GBH with Intent?
GBH is a form of assault where someone deliberately causes another person really serious physical injury. GBH with intent to cause serious bodily harm is an even more serious crime than GBH and is usually committed with the aim of seriously harming the victim.

The main difference between GBH and GBH with intent is the intention behind the act. If someone is charged with GBH with intent, it usually means that the person who committed the act meant to cause harm. If someone is charged with GBH but didn’t have the intention of causing harm, it usually means that the person simply lost control and didn’t mean to cause harm.

 

[Ian H]

I'm a bit baffled too! This page seems to explain it (at some length) caveat emptor of course:
https://adleygray.com/what-constitutes-gbh-with-intent-in-the-uk/
What’s the Difference Between GBH and GBH with Intent?
GBH is a form of assault where someone deliberately causes another person really serious physical injury. GBH with intent to cause serious bodily harm is an even more serious crime than GBH and is usually committed with the aim of seriously harming the victim.

The main difference between GBH and GBH with intent is the intention behind the act. If someone is charged with GBH with intent, it usually means that the person who committed the act meant to cause harm. If someone is charged with GBH but didn’t have the intention of causing harm, it usually means that the person simply lost control and didn’t mean to cause harm.

I think the word they're searching for is premeditation.

 

[Pross]

I'm a bit baffled too! This page seems to explain it (at some length) caveat emptor of course:
https://adleygray.com/what-constitutes-gbh-with-intent-in-the-uk/
What’s the Difference Between GBH and GBH with Intent?
GBH is a form of assault where someone deliberately causes another person really serious physical injury. GBH with intent to cause serious bodily harm is an even more serious crime than GBH and is usually committed with the aim of seriously harming the victim.

The main difference between GBH and GBH with intent is the intention behind the act. If someone is charged with GBH with intent, it usually means that the person who committed the act meant to cause harm. If someone is charged with GBH but didn’t have the intention of causing harm, it usually means that the person simply lost control and didn’t mean to cause harm.

Yep, but if you follow that through the attempted bit would surely automatically come into effect i.e. you couldn't have attempted GBH as by the very nature of attempting to cause GBH you are showing the intent so you either drop the attempted or the intent part? Also, in this case surely he actually caused GBH rather than just attempting to do so or did none of the injured meet the threshold for "serious injury"?

 

[spen666]

Yep, but if you follow that through the attempted bit would surely automatically come into effect i.e. you couldn't have attempted GBH as by the very nature of attempting to cause GBH you are showing the intent so you either drop the attempted or the intent part? Also, in this case surely he actually caused GBH rather than just attempting to do so or did none of the injured meet the threshold for "serious injury"?

Think you are mistaken in your logic and getting to hung up on words and confusing attempt and intent.

Take muder - as the offence - you would presumably accept it is possible to attempt to murder someone. Murder requires "malice aforethought" ie intent
for example if I get a gun with the intention of killing you. I fire the gun at you, but as I am a crap marksman I miss you with the shot. That is still attempted murder as I with malice aforethought ( ie intent) attempted to kill you

Same with GBH with intent - eg I get a car and drive it at you intending to cause you really serious harm, but whether by luck or lack of driving ability I fail to cause you serious harm and you suffer no or minor injuries, I would still be guilty of Attempted GBH with intent
I attempted to cause you really serious injury (GBH) and the intent is proved by the fact I got a motor vehicle to do it with ( ie the intent)


If I punch you in a pub after you insult me and cause really serious harm, that is GBH and not GBH with intent as I had a momentary loss of control and did not form the necessary intent to cause you really serious harm. If however after you insult me, I pick up a bottle, smash it and hit you with it, then that would be GBH with intent, or if fortunately you were able to avoid my use of the bottle, it would be an attempted GBH with intent

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I had a momentary loss of control

I pick up a bottle, smash it and hit you with it, then that would be GBH with intent,

Could you not pick up the bottle whilst having a momentary loss of control?

 

[spen666]

Could you not pick up the bottle whilst having a momentary loss of control?

you have gone beyond a momentary loss of control if you pick up bottle, then break it then use it

 

[Beebo]

21 years seems like a long time.
But the dash cam footage must be horrific.

 

[spen666]

21 years seems like a long time.
But the dash cam footage must be horrific.

Read the reports of the sentencing hearing in any media outlet
The prosecution version of events is absolutely horrific and he pleaded to I think over 100 counts of GBH with intent - each offence carried a potential life sentence. He was also driving very badly on his way into Liverpool, umping red lights, undertaking, speeding etc. Its fair to say this was more than a momentary lapse of driving

He will "only" serve 2/3rds of the sentence (assuming good behaviour etc)

 

[matticus]

he pleaded to I think over 100 counts of GBH with intent - each offence carried a potential life sentence.

When you read that, 21 years doesn't seem too crazy.
I can't think of any similar scale event that wasn't a planned, terrorism-type action. And it must be rare for no deaths, but over 100 seroiusly injured :-/

Spen can you recall anything of this scale in the UK?

 

[spen666]

When you read that, 21 years doesn't seem too crazy.
I can't think of any similar scale event that wasn't a planned, terrorism-type action. And it must be rare for no deaths, but over 100 seroiusly injured :-/

Spen can you recall anything of this scale in the UK?

Off the top of my head I can't. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened before.

Often there is a "global" charge that covers an incident. In this case there was nothing I can think of that would carry sufficient sentencing powers.

The media live reports of the sentencing hearing make for horrific reading. His driving on way to pick up the friend, long before he got to the parade was dreadful. It appears he has had temper issues in the past (30+years ago) with convictions for violence including serving prison sentence.

Its a strange case in many ways - both for the reason you point out and also as there seems to be no explanation as to why it happened. Neither Prosecution nor defence have addressed this. The Prosecution showed it was a course of conduct, not a momentary lapse, but not why he did the acts.

A sad case and more so as one of victims hit by his car had been a victim of the Manchester Arena bombing as well. That person must be seriously traumatised about public events

 

[Beebo]

He does seem to have had a period of regular fights and trouble in late 80s / early 90s. Which suggests a history of anger issues.
The total lack of motive is very odd.

 

[matticus]

The total lack of motive is very odd.

Sorry, I may have missed some bits of reporting here; I thought he simply used the parade route by mistake (whilst already angry about something else - hence the other bad driving), then got vv angry when he was blocked by the crowd:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde6kne1ykno

Sarah Hammond, chief crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service, said Doyle had finally accepted that he intentionally drove into crowds of innocent people.

"Dashcam footage from Doyle's vehicle shows that as he approached Dale Street and Water Street, he became increasingly agitated by the crowds," she said.

"Rather than wait for them to pass, he deliberately drove at them, forcing his way through."