Four Liverpool parade crash victims named after judge lifts anonymity order

The Guardian

03-06-2025

A judge has lifted an order preventing four adult victims of bank holiday Monday's alleged attack at Liverpool FC's title parade from being named.
Paul Doyle, 53, 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.
He is also charged with wounding with intent and a second count of attempted GBH against two children, to whom reporting restrictions still apply.
Sitting at Liverpool crown court, Judge Menary KC, the recorder of Liverpool, allowed the names of four alleged victims to be reported.
Outlining his reasons, the judge said: 'The principle of open justice is not a mere procedural formality – it is a core constitutional value so that any deviation from it must be supported by clear and cogent evidence.'
The court heard that the victims had spoken of their anxieties around testifying in a high-profile trial and in being named in media reports.
'I accept that the complainants are sincere in expressing concern and emotional difficulty,' the judge said. 'Indeed, if asked, I anticipate that most people would say that if they were ever required to give evidence in court proceedings they would prefer not to have their involvement publicised. I do not underestimate the ordeal that potentially lies ahead for each of them.'
However, he said that the public nature of the collision, the details of which had already been widely publicised, and the fact that there was likely to be widespread sympathy, rather than animosity towards the victims, meant anonymity was not necessary.
'The public nature of this incident, and the apparently blameless status of the complainants, make it difficult to see how identification would deter them from testifying,' the judge said. 'Their accounts relate to events already widely discussed in the public domain,' he added. 'There is, it seems to me, no risk of victim-blaming or reprisals from any quarter, nor any indication that public identification would result in hostility.'
He said that to allow anonymity would risk setting a precedent of not naming witnesses, contrary to the principle of open justice.
'Anonymising adult complainants in such circumstances —absent compelling evidence – would risk setting an unfortunate pattern where anonymity becomes the norm for witnesses in criminal cases,' he said, 'or at least gives rise to an expectation on the part of witnesses that their personal details will not be reported.'
Lifting the restriction imposed last week at the magistrates court, Menary said: 'In my judgment, the public interest in open and accurate reporting outweighs the potential distress, anxiety or discomfort to these witnesses. The restriction is not necessary or proportionate, nor convincingly established.'
Doyle was not required to attend court for the hearing. He is due to appear for a plea hearing in August, with a provisional trial date set for November.