Lucy Taylor

Lucy is instructed for both prosecution and defence in Magistrates’ and Crown Courts across the West Country. This has given her a broad foundation in criminal litigation and court advocacy, including being instructed in Crown Court jury trials.

Her instructing solicitors have particularly noted her down-to-earth approach and her real expertise and talent in dealing with youths, vulnerable witnesses and clients.

Lucy has a keen interest in cases with a modern-slavery aspect and delivers seminars on the subject. She is a CPS Grade 3 prosecutor.

Cases of interest:

• Operation Eternity (2023-2024) – prosecuting allegations of Class A drug trafficking, possession of weapons and money laundering. The charges were spread across three indictments, reflecting the principal defendant’s involvement in various overlapping OCGs. Instructed from the outset, advising on charges and litigation tactics. The case involved DNA evidence, covert surveillance and a complicated confiscation order under POCA involving crypto currency. After securing convictions, the sentence hearing was a full day with detailed sentencing notes prepared for each indictment. – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-68712859
• R v L (2024) – defending allegations of serious violence. Initially charged with a GBH offence perpetrated on an elderly man in his home, L was further charged with separate s18 GBH offence, intentional strangulation and S20 GBH on an intervener. Just before trial, L was charged with a spate of domestic violence offences, whilst on bail. Interlinked BCAs were made, complicated by unusual chronology. The case resolved by acceptable, limited pleas. L found dangerous, but sentences were significantly reduced by the approach to mitigation. – https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/man-pushed-pensioner-over-wall-8610850
• A&S v N (2024) – prosecuting an application for forfeiture of detained cash under S298 POCA on behalf of the South West Regional Organised Crime Unit after N was stopped returning to the UK having been extradited to Poland to finish a sentence for drug trafficking and serious violence. The case required robust cross-examination covering multiple bank accounts.
• C (2024) – appeal by C against a conviction for malicious communications. Lucy reviewed large volumes of phone data to produce further questions for the experts instructed. The experts were asked to analyse whether someone else could have made the calls from a different handset but using C’s number. The answers to those questions assisted C’s case. Cross-examination of the experts established that there were a number of technical aspects with handsets, networks and data transfer that led to C’s acquittal.
• R v N & M (2023) – defending N in a conspiracy to commit non-dwelling burglaries. Applications made to exclude evidence, dismiss the case and written objections to amending the indictment were produced. The submissions covered breaches of the PACE code D identification procedure, contested attribution of phone numbers, inconsistent cell site data and issues with CCTV interpretation. – https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-09-18/burglars-caught-on-cctv-crawling-to-avoid-cameras-jailed
• R v P (2022) – acted for D1 in a six handed being concerned in the supply of class A case. Lucy also dealt with the additional two indictments concerning similar offences.
• R v J (2022) – for defendant in a POCA case resulting from health and safety offences. Client was abroad and there were issues over ownership of niche vehicles and how the case could be dealt with when client was outside the jurisdiction.
• Avon & Somerset Constabulary v Z (2021) – an application for a forfeiture order under section 303Z14 POCA 2002. The issue was whether money connected to Chinese underground banking could be traced into the respondent’s account and forfeited.
• Avon & Somerset Constabulary v C (2021) – an application for a forfeiture order under section 303Z14 POCA 2002. The issue was whether the money in the respondent’s account was from the unlawful conduct of money laundering and managing a brothel.
• R v B & A (2021) – representing both defendants in proceeding under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, aiding and abetting those offences and an offence under the Insolvency Act 1986. This involved reviewing large volumes of evidence relating to various companies, advising and representation through to sentence.
• R v FL (2019) – defence of a youth charged with being concerned in the supply of class A. Involved a referral to the National Referral Mechanism to determine if the defendant was a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking.
• Avon & Somerset Police v Lopresti (2019) – obtained a Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order against a defendant charged with modern slavery offences. The order is understood to be the first in the region.
• R v Davis (2019) – prosecution of a £17,700.15 benefit fraud. The defendant was claiming DLA on the basis of being virtually unable to walk after alleging she was wheelchair bound and needed assistance seven days a week from 1999. The defendant failed to disclose a change in circumstances. This was uncovered following an investigation into her business, which transpired to be a brothel. Photographs of her undertaking activities on holiday were discovered along with CCTV of the Defendant climbing stairs without assistance.

Lucy has a growing employment practice and is instructed by claimants and respondents in equal measure. She has garnered a national practice over the last year, having been instructed for cases in Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds covering a wide range of issues, including:

• Unfair dismissal;
• Discrimination: race, sex, age and disability;
• Equal pay claims;
• Wrongful dismissal;
• Breach of contract.

Lucy is frequently instructed at the outset of a case to advise on prospects of success. Examples include:

• W v T (2025) – advice on prospects of success in a claim already issued for unfair dismissal (procedurally unfair and substantively unfair) and wrongful dismissal. The advice also covered Polkey, contributary fault and sensible settlement figures. This involved an intricate examination of many interviews to piece together who had said what to establish an element of collusion in the allegations made against W.
• B v P (2024) – advised on evidential difficulties in a case involving direct sex discrimination and indirect discrimination. The advice assisted in resolving the case.
• G v L (2024) – advice on prospects of success in a claim issued for substantive and procedurally unfair dismissal. This involved allegations of ill treatment of care home residents with disabilities by a care worker.
• L v O (2024) – advice on prospects of success for unfair dismissal, victimisation and direct age discrimination. L was pushed out of her role through reliance on an audit process that was instigated after L had said they were not going to retire and had requested flexible working. Jurisdiction was a key issue as limitation was fast approaching, advice was given on next steps to ensure C issued in time and achieved the best outcome while saving expense.
• B v K (2022) – advised on appeal following adverse findings against K. Separately advised on quantum.
• M v B (2021) – advice on prospects of success for unfair dismissal relating to redundancy. This required analysis of policies and internal council communications to confirm a genuine redundancy situation.
• M (2019) – advice on prospects of success of disability discrimination, sex discrimination and victimisation claims. Involved analysing communications between colleagues and previous feedback on the promotion process to determine whether the claims had prospects.
• L (2019) – advised on whether there was an unfair-dismissal claim arising out of private group Whatsapp messages with colleagues. Involved discussing the status of private messages against the backdrop of various company policies.

Cases of interest:

• T v Newport City Council (2023) – led by Matthew Jackson in a claim involving the rights of supply teachers engaged through agencies regarding pay and conditions, as well as pay portability between England and Wales. T’s case was included as one of a number of test cases, which ultimately settled.
• B v K (2022-2023) – instructed on behalf of the respondent in a case involving apprenticeships, including issues surrounding new style, old style and common law apprenticeships and transitional provisions. Lucy produced written submissions for reconsideration including additional submissions on specific cases at the request of the Judge, advised on appeal and quantum, produced points of agreement and disagreement on schedules of loss and a skeleton argument for remedy.
• M v L (2022) – instructed for the respondent in an unfair dismissal and whistleblowing case. This case involved significant issues over the large bundle and late service of witness statements.
• G v B (2022) – instructed by the respondent Council to defend an unfair dismissal claim. The issues were unfair dismissal, victimisation and breach of contract. The claimant was moved to a different work team after he posted a racially insensitive video in a work WhatsApp group. A new manager took over the permanent position and decided the informal approach didn’t reflect the seriousness of the conduct. Claimant was dismissed.
• P v C (2021) – instructed on behalf of the respondent in a case involving allegations of unfair dismissal due to raising health and safety concerns, unfair dismissal due to whistleblowing, detriments for whistleblowing and making health and safety disclosures, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay. The case turned on interpretation of the coronavirus guidance that had been given at the beginning of the pandemic and messages exchanged between claimant and respondent thereafter. All but one head of claim dismissed. The case required application of the legislation to a set of circumstances that none of us had experience of until the pandemic, as well as the limited case law emerging on the issue. Lucy drafted the pleadings, did the preliminary hearing and gave advice throughout the case on the bundle and other matters arising.
• RG, C v PI, C, M & M (2020) – instructed on behalf of the third and fourth respondent in a TUPE case involving a public house. The public house was closed for a period of three months instead of the anticipated two weeks. The previous landlady was informed that there would no longer be a transfer. The claim was issued. One month later the third respondent leased the public house and subsequently entered into a joint lease with the fourth respondent. The case also involved changes in how the business was run behind the scenes despite the public house operating under the same name and providing the same services.