Richard Madeley sparks ITV GMB outrage as fans blast 'shameful' Paul Doyle 'defence' remark during sentencing debate: 'Absolute joke!'

Mr Doyle admitted to dangerous driving, affray, and multiple counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Speaking to Kevin Maguire and Andrew Pierce about the sentencing, Mr Madeley put a series of potential arguments to his co-stars as to why some may feel the two-decade-plus sentence could be perceived as harsh.

"I’m not saying I agree with this, but, you know, we’re having an open discussion here, so let’s say that this was an act that was committed without intent," he began.

"To the extent that he left his home that day, not intending, it wasn’t planned like a murderer might have a plan to take another human being’s life, or somebody who’s disqualified from driving has a plan to break the law and go out disqualified and may be drunk.

"This guy was dropping a friend off, wasn’t he, in town, and the red mist, for reasons of which nobody can get to the bottom of, the red mist descended."

Mr Madeley's second argument soon followed. "Another point, then. What about the argument, again, this has been an open discussion on radio phone-ins since the sentencing, that it was what you might call a psychotic episode, that he basically went briefly insane, that his actions were not deliberately planned and carried through, but the result of a total insane loss of control?"

"Isn’t it odd that that wasn’t put forward in any way, shape, or form, let alone a defence, an explanation, during this trial? I mean, the judge was scratching his head yesterday, basically saying, we don’t know why."

And Mr Madeley played devil's advocate once again: "One last point, again, for the defence. I just want to put it out there. Punishments, sentences in court, one of the factors in them is to act as a deterrent. How much can you deter somebody from losing their temper?

"You can deter somebody from being a burglar, from committing a sexual offence, but can a punishment actually deter someone from losing it, and basically falling into the terrible grip of road rage?"

Later in the show, rather than Mr Madeley providing the other side of the argument against Mr Doyle's sentence, he and Ms Reid welcomed associate solicitor Rojin Tasman and former President of the Law Society and solicitor, Stephanie Boyce, to debate the issue.

And it soon became clear Ms Tasman appeared in agreement with the arguments posed by Mr Madeley earlier in the show. "I’ve worked in criminal defence since 2016, so coming up to a decade. I’ve represented murderers, and they have received a much lesser sentence than what he has received," she said.

"I appreciate the fact that there is a substantial amount of victims in this case, and there are many mitigating factors as well as aggravating factors, and his actions are inexcusable. I am not excusing his actions, okay?" she added, to which Mr Madeley cut in: "No, we’re talking about the sentence, not the verdict."

Ms Tasman continued: "Yeah. In respect to the conviction, that’s not the problem — it’s the sentence. And I would say it is unjustifiable, it is excessive.

"And that’s just as a lawyer. In my practice, I’ve seen sentences. I’ve represented murderers who have received a much more lenient sentence than he has."

Mr Madeley intervened to ask if Ms Tasman held her views because Mr Doyle hadn't acted in a "premeditated" manner. "So you think that’s different from a murderer premeditatingly planning a killing and then carrying it out?" he asked.

Ms Tasman confirmed Mr Madeley's suspicions: "Yeah, of course. I mean, it makes a difference — it’s another aggravating or mitigating factor. But it’s more than that. You know, he didn’t commit any offences for over 30 years. He’s been described as the perfect family man — not a good family man, the perfect family man, a diamond. Everyone that knows him only has good things to say about him.

"So really, if I was the victim — and again, I’m not excusing this horrific incident — but it’s more of: why did he commit this offence? How can we address it? We’re not excusing it. How can we address it?

"What we’ve done is we’ve thrown him into prison. What’s going to happen? Practically speaking, he’s going to end up serving half the time, if not less, subject to his character in prison and his behaviour, and then he’s released. Do we have a better citizen for the public? Or is he gonna be angrier?"

Ms Reid then cut in to ask Ms Boyce for her view on the sentencing. "Can I firstly say that my thoughts are with the many affected by this senseless act?" Ms Boyce began.

"To start with, the minimum term that Mr Boyle would have faced, my understanding is 12 years. But when you take into account the gravity and the scale — over 134 individuals affected, physically, psychologically, the trauma inflicted — that will live with many for the rest of their lives, as well as the life-changing disabilities that some have suffered.

"So, to put that into context, and I think I saw somewhere that somebody divided it up and said it represents about three months for every individual who’s been affected. So, if you take into account the gravity and scale, 21 years and six months is, I do not believe, too harsh. It is proportionate."

Ms Reid commented: "That’s interesting, because when you parcel it up like that, those who might think it’s too harsh would probably think, I imagine, three months per victim is not harsh enough."

Ms Boyce agreed: "Absolutely. And, of course, there are some who say that some of those individuals did not suffer physical injury. But the psychological trauma — and it wasn’t just the 134 individuals that we know about — there were four individuals who were trapped under this two-ton vehicle, two children, an individual in their seventies, the scale of the panic that was caused, where individuals started to scatter because they thought, you know, that it was a potential terrorist effect, and so forth.

"But we know from the victim’s statements that were read out in court, the enduring trauma of these individuals, and, you know, what this sentence will allow is, yes, it brings a sense of justice to them, but it will also perhaps allow some closure so they can move on — but given the scale of the rehabilitation, the care, and the support that these individuals will need."

While the debate continued in an orderly manner, it's safe to say several of those watching at home were less than impressed with Ms Tasman and Mr Madeley, in particular, for putting forward arguments to suggest Mr Doyle's sentence was too harsh.

Taking to X, one fan said of Mr Madeley specifically: "What’s fucking annoying is Madeley trying to play devil's advocate... I’m truly amazed no one was killed, and if there’d been deaths, would Madeley have carried on with that devils advocate c**p!"

A second similarly fumed: "@GMB even discussing Paul Doyle's sentence is an absolute joke. The t**t tried to run down hundreds of people. Susanna Reid and Richard Madeley trying to fight his corner is an embarrassment. Whoever wanted to give this air time should bow their heads in shame. #GMB #LFC."

"#Gmb He did it with intent no disregard for anybody but himself!! He deserves this sentence!! This is a stepping stone to any other vile individual who drives into a crowd of people!!" a third raged.

Elsewhere, a fourth hit out at the segment: "I don't understand why ITV's GMB should challenge the sentencing of Paul Doyle. It doesn't seem right that a TV show should question the sentence the very next day after the court case. #GMB."

And a fifth sarcastically asked: "#GMB Does Madeley have an 'outrageometer' in his head which based on God knows what is either excusing or outraged by an atrocity committed by a person?"

Meanwhile, another took aim at Ms Tasman: "#GMB Who the f*** is this idiot on GMB?? Thinks that vile scumbag Doyle should have a lesser sentence! F*** off." (sic)

A seventh also complained: "Hey @GMB is such a f***ing disingenuous platform, they started trying to drum up sympathy for the insane guy who rammed his car into a parade by bringing on some random solicitor who thinks his sentence was harsh, she got first and last word of the debate, opposition got one." (sic)