Nick Taylor's Publications
‘Judicial Management or Juror Impropriety’, Journal of Criminal Law, 78.1 (2014), 43-64,
The debate surrounding the utility of trial by jury is as relevant as ever. Much criticism of the ability of jurors to carry out their task was brought to the fore following the highly publicised Pryce trial and the comments from Sweeney J indicating a fundamental problem in jurors’ understanding of their role. Furthermore, media attention surrounding a steady stream of cases involving juror misconduct has called into question whether jury trial can survive in its current form. This article recognises that although juries are not a normative part of a fair trial, they do have considerable value in enhancing public confidence in the fairness of the criminal process, particularly through the perception of impartiality. If public support is lost, then the value of jury might be lost with it. Whilst the Law Commission is rightly considering how jurors might be more prepared in advance to carry out their role effectively, this article considers the current judicial approach to dealing with the practical issue of juror impropriety once it has occurred. Through looking at a series of trial and appeal cases it can be seen that a framework has developed which seeks to ensure that trials are derailed rarely whilst the impartiality of the jury is safeguarded. It is maintained that in emphasising both actual and apparent impartiality the vital element of public confidence in the existing process can be preserved.
‘To find the needle do you need the whole haystack? Global surveillance and principled regulation’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 18.1 (2014), 45-67,
Revelations concerning global surveillance of mass communications data have clearly illustrated the paucity of legal regulation in this area. Surveillance almost inevitably engages the right to privacy but such is the notoriously nebulous nature of privacy, particularly on an international scale, that it fails to provide sufficient safeguards against state abuses of surveillance capacity. In the face of national security concerns privacy appears to be routinely relegated to being an inconvenient obstacle. The capacity of the United States and the United Kingdom to carry out surveillance on an enormous scale has highlighted not only the inadequacies of their own domestic regulatory frameworks but also the ease with which, through modern communications technology, unfettered global surveillance can take place. This paper analyses these issues and further considers the normative international regulatory framework that should apply to surveillance if it is to take place according to the rule of law and democratic values.
‘The Law Commission's Contempt Proposals - Getting the Balance Right?’, Criminal Law Review, .6 (2013), 465-482,
In November 2012 the Law Commission published a consultation paper1 on the subject of contempt of court in response to the Attorney-General’s call for the “urgent need to reform” this area of law.2 In the thirty years since the passing of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the production and consumption of news has changed considerably in ways that could not have been foreseen and thus make a review of the 1981 Act an imperative. Nonetheless, this paper recognizes the continuing need to reconcile the interests of open justice and free expression with the requirement for an unimpeded judicial system and fair trial rights. The paper focuses on certain key aspects of the consultation paper and provides analysis of the current law. Ultimately, to carry credibility, proposals for reform must engage with a principled analysis of the competing interests at stake if they are to maintain their relevance in a swiftly changing media environment.
‘Docketing-Lite: an analysis of a process of assigning multi track cases to individual judges’, Civil Justice Quarterly, 31 (2012), 430-450,
‘A Conceptual Legal Framework for privacy, accountability and transparency in visual surveillance systems’, Journal of Surveillance and Society, 8.4 (2011), 455-470,
The United Kingdom uses visual surveillnace techniques on a huge scale, but its rewgulation of those techniques has been sadly lacking. This paper seeks to consider the extent to which the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides an overarching framework for the regulation of visual surveillance practices, both overt and covert, thereby bringing about the conditions for accountability and transparency, and to critically analyse the extent to which UK law operates within that framework so far as it applies to video surveillance.
‘Privacy and the DNA Database’, European Human Rights Law Review, 2005.4 (2005), 373-392,
Over recent years there have been both judicial and statutory developments that have given considerable impetus towards a comprehensive national DNA database. In this article it is asserted that, contrary to the pronouncements of the House of Lords, the retention of DNA samples does engage the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention, thus making the proportionality of the statutory scheme of crucial importance. It is suggested that the House of Lords approach to the application of Article 8 in DNA sample retention displays a reluctance to develop a pro active response to the development of the scope of Article 8, and an approach to proportionality in which the right is too readily overridden in utilitarian calculations.
‘Sexual Offences: trial delay’, Criminal Law Review 2005, 74-76,
‘Compensation for 'miscarriage of justice': Eligibility’, Journal of Criminal Law, 68(5) (2004), 380-382,
‘Compensation for miscarriage of justice’, Criminal Law Review 2004, 837-838,
‘Prison Death: Requirement To Investigate’, Journal of Criminal Law, 68(4) (2004),
‘Fresh Evidence: Development In Forensic Science Relating To Ear Prints’, None, 68(3) (2004), 201-203,
‘Criminal Trial: Publicity relating to a child; Re S (A Child)’, Journal of Criminal Law, 68(2) (2004), 114-117,
‘Mind the Gaps: Safety, Fairness and Moral Legitimacy’, Criminal Law Review, APR (2004), 266-283,
This article offers an examination of the Court of Appeal’s approach to determining the safety of convictions since the decision in Togher. It is suggested that although initially welcomed, Togher causes serious problems. We offer an explanation of the Court’s approach to appeals in terms of the principles of unfairness and safety, and of their relationship with the abuse of process doctrine. We suggest that the Court is adopting an unduly narrow interpretation of safety, which comes close to requiring proof of abuse of process to quash a conviction.
‘Compensating the Wrongfully Convicted’, Journal of Criminal Law, 67.3 (2003), 220-236,
Considers the interpretation of the statutory and ex gratia compensation schemes for those victims of miscarraiges of justice. Reflects upon the pilot scheme introduced through the CAB to offer more tangible assistance.
‘Policing, Privacy and Proportionality’, European Human Rights Law Review, 2003.Supp (2003), 86-100,
This article considers the interpretation of the requirements of 'proportionality' under the ECHR and analyses its potential impact on various aspects of policing practice that impinge upon the right to private life.
‘Surveillance, Private Life and the Right to a Fair Trial: PG and JH v United Kingdom’, Journal of Criminal Law, ed. by McKittrick N 2002, 246-249,
‘Recklessness of Council's Use of Personal Data: Information Commissioner v Islington Borough Council’, Journal of Criminal Law, ed. by McKittrick N, 66.5 (2002), 394-396,
‘Football banning orders do not violate Community or Convention law: Gough and Smith v Chief Constable of Derbyshire’, Journal of Criminal Law, ed. by McKittrick N, 66.4 (2002), 309-311,
‘Claim based on theoretical or illusory rights will fail: R (On the application of M (A Child)) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis’, Journal of Criminal Law, ed. by McKittrick N, 66.2 (2002), 115-116,
‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Part 1: BigBrother.gov.uk: state surveillance in the age of information and rights’, Criminal Law Review, FEB (2001), 73-90,
‘Human Rights and the Discretionary Exclusion of Evidence’, Journal of Criminal Law, ed. by McKittrick N, 65.4 (2001), 349-359,
‘Football Banning Orders: compatibility with EU and human rights law: Gough and Smith v Chief Constable of Derbyshire’, Journal of Criminal Law, ed. by McKittrick N, 65.6 (2001), 471-473,
‘Review of 'Human Rights Cases’, Journal of Criminal Law, ed. by McKittrick N, 65.3 (2001), 269-271,
‘Review of 'Civilian Oversight of Policing: Governance, Democracy and Human Rights’, Public Law 2001, pp.820,
‘Review of 'Search and Surveillance’, Journal of Civil Liberties, ed. by Davenport A, 6.3 (2001), 258-262,
‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Economy, Effectiveness and Justice’, Criminal Law Review 2000, 140-153,
‘Trespassers Might be Prosecuted: The European Convention and Restrictions on the Right to assemble’, European Human Rights Law Review, 3 (1998), 292-300,
‘Publications interfering with the course of justice in particular criminal proceedings’, in Borrie and Lowe: The Law of Contempt, ed. by Cram I (Butterworths, 2010),
‘The Impact of Fundamental Human Rights in Criminal Process: National Report on England and Wales’, in The Impact of Uniform Law on National Law. Limits and Possibilities ([n.pub.], 2010), 560-608,
‘Post Conviction Procedures’, in Miscarriages of Justice: A Review of Justice in Error, ed. by Walker C and Starmer K (Blackstone Press, London, 1999), 229-246,
‘Victims of Miscarriages of Justice’, in Miscarriages of Justice a Review of Justice in Error, ed. by Walker C and Starmer K (Blackstone Press, London, 1999), 247-262,
‘International Academy of Comparative Law’, Mexico City, 13/11/2008 - 15/11/2008,
The Impact of Uniform Law on National Law. Limits and Possibilities: National Report on the Criminal Process of England and Wales
State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy, (Surveillance and Society, 2002),