- Broad Street Bristol BS1 1DR
- E: email@example.com
Broad Street Bristol BS1 1DREmail
Lucy Taylor became a tenant in Chambers in 2018 after completing her pupillage at Albion. She practises in Crime and Employment.
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 2 prosecutor.
Cases of interest:
- R v Z (2023) – a four-day jury trial concerning possession of an offensive weapon and two assaults. Issues included non-defendant bad character application.
- R v D (2023) – a case involving illegal entry into the UK and use of forged documents.
- Avon & Somerset Constabulary (A&S) v E; A&S v W – application for a DVPO in the first case and sentencing for breach of a DVPO in the second.
- 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.
- R v P (2022) – representing an 18 year old for robbery and possession of an imitation firearm.
- R v S (2021) – a dangerous driving trial. The issue was identity.
- R v A (2021) – a GBH trial involving a neighbour dispute culminating in the attack. Involved cell site evidence. Issue was identity.
- 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 F (2021) – co-defending in an ABH and GBH trial. Successful half-time submissions made.
- 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 R (2020) – prosecution of a stalking offence involving putting an ex-partner in fear of violence on at least two occasions.
- M v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary (2019) – Lucy was instructed by the Constabulary to conduct a number of pre-trial hearings and a multi-day appeal hearing in relation to an appeal of a Community Protection Notice. This involved advising on the evidence to be collated to defend the appeal and on the issuing of CPNs.
- 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.
- R v B (2019) – defence of a woman charged with a public order offence. After lengthy legal argument about the admissibility of CCTV evidence the case was dropped against five defendants.
- R v J (2018) – trial in North Somerset Magistrates’ Court concerning an allegation of assault on two young girls. Lucy was instructed for the defence, she undertook her cross examination of the two complainants who appeared via video-link carefully and sensitively, the bench acquitted in under 20 minutes.
- R v M (2018) – Swindon Crown Court. Instructed by the prosecution. The defendant was charged with various breaches of a restraining order stemming from an incident where the victim was pushed from a moving vehicle. The defendant was convicted and sentenced.
- R v W (2018) – prosecuting a breach of Sexual Offences Prevention Order made in 2005, the order was based on the defendant’s long history of sexually-related offending and offences of the most serious kind including the killing of a child. Lucy prosecuted the defendant for the subsequent breaches of the order, the defendant was convicted and received a term of imprisonment.
- R v M (2018) – defence of a man charged with using a mobile telephone whilst driving. After Lucy cross examined the two police witnesses, the bench acquitted.
Employment & Professional Disciplinary
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 as to prospects of success. Examples include:
- 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.
- J (2018) – instructed for the claimant in a case concerning allegations of unpaid commission/unpaid unlawful deductions. The case focussed upon the interpretation of a complex claw-back contractual term.
- C (2018) – employment claim regarding a civilian security officer working at a military base. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly leaving an entrance to the military base unsecured. The claimant relied upon a custom and practice in relation to this entrance, and argued dissimilar treatment.
Cases of interest:
- B v K (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, points of agreement and disagreement on schedules of loss and a skeleton argument for remedy.
- S v C (2022-2023) –instructed on behalf of the claimant in a case involving unfair dismissal and allegations of gross misconduct. The case involved interpreters and was part-heard into 2023.
- 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.
- G v P (2021) – instructed on behalf of the claimant in a case involving sexual harassment and direct discrimination on the grounds of sex. The respondent was a litigant in person. There were many messages to analyse and cross-examine on.
- 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 have 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.
- B v A (2021) – claim for constructive dismissal and failure to provide written employment particulars. The issue was whether the claimant was bullied and felt they had to leave their employment or if the issues raised were genuine issues the respondent was entitled to investigate.
- C v V (2021) – breach of contract case. The case turned on the interpretation of the contractual terms and whether there was any verbal alteration to the terms entitling the claimant to six months of notice pay.
- I v I (2021) – a claim for unfair dismissal including procedurally unfair dismissal. The issue was whether the security company providing services to a large bank were justified in dismissing the claimant for letting staff go home early leaving positions unmanned and people unable to access the building and whether the procedure followed was fair.
- 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.
- S v F (2019) – instructed on behalf of the claimant in relation to an unfair dismissal case. The issue was whether there had been a fair investigation into allegations of sexual harassment in the work place.
- M v D (2019) – advised and conducted the preliminary hearing on behalf of the claimant. Drafted correspondence for the Tribunal to further particularise the claim. The claimant worked for a government organisation that failed to make reasonable adjustments upon her return to work following disability absence. The claimant was subjected to an oppressive absence procedure that did not take into account her disabilities, despite purporting to do so. The case involved delving beneath the surface to establish that the respondent had acted inappropriately, and unlawfully.
- M v C (2019) – instructed for the respondent. The main issue in this case was jurisdiction. The claim was significantly out of time and the claimant was an agency worker, so could not claim for unfair dismissal.
- G v I (2019) – instructed for the respondent; a large multi-office organisation. The heads of claim were constructive unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments and failure to pay severance pay. Initially the judge wanted to determine jurisdiction only at the preliminary hearing, but Lucy effectively argued that all issues should be dealt with at a preliminary hearing on the basis that none of them have reasonable prospects of success.
- B v J (2019) – instructed for the claimant through the Bar Pro Bono Unit in a case against a well-known supermarket. The central issues were disability discrimination including failure to make reasonable adjustments, constructive unfair dismissal, harassment and victimisation. Lucy was instrumental in narrowing the issues and shaping the separate heads of claim.