Paul specialises in criminal appeals. He has developed a particular expertise in cases involving fresh expert forensic evidence (including GSR, DNA, CCTV), homicide, and offenders with mental disorders. He is head of the Doughty Street Criminal Appeal Unit.
Paul regularly represents appellants before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (being instructed at the appellate stage), and is currently representing James Smith in his ongoing appeal before the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. (This was the first CCRC referral in NI based on the changes in the law following Jogee.)
He appeared (remotely) in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in a murder appeal from the British Virgin Islands (Kenyatta Boynes v The Queen), and in the appeal of Roger Mootoo in the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago. (Mr. Mootoo had been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 28 years imprisonment with hard labour. His conviction was quashed and no retrial ordered.)
Paul has appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, (as junior counsel) in capital appeals from the Caribbean, and as leading counsel in Philips v The Director of Public Prosecutions (St Christopher and Nevis), (a murder appeal from St. Kitts and Nevis) and Williams v Supervisory Authority, (an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Antiguan money laundering regulations [Watch the hearing: here],) and in Roger Watson v The King (2023). (The JCPC quashed Mr. Watson’s sentence of 50 years imprisonment for manslaughter and remitted his case to the Court of Appeal of The Bahamas to be re-sentenced.)
He has also extensive experience in drafting submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and representations in relation to the judicial setting of tariffs in murder cases under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Paul is the general editor of the third edition of Taylor on Criminal Appeals, (published by OUP in 2022), the leading practitioners’ textbook dealing with procedural aspects of criminal appeals and review. The last edition of the book (2012) was well received, with positive reviews, and it has been cited in judgments of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, Final Court of Appeal in Hong Kong, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court and the Caribbean Court of Justice. Click here to see information of the latest edition (2022).
Paul has also written case commentaries for the Criminal Law Review and lectures on appellate matters in England and Northern Ireland. He has provided training in the Cayman Islands and Bahamas, and (virtually) to members of the Organisation of Caribbean Commonwealth Bar Association and the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago.
He is editor of the DSC Criminal Appeals Unit bulletin which includes case commentaries on appellate cases from England and Wales, Northern Ireland and from the Caribbean. Click here to see the Criminal Appeals page and the archive of the previous issues. He also hosts Appealcast, an occasional podcast dealing with appellate crime.
Paul is currently assisting the Bar Council Law Reform Committee with submissions to the Law Commission on its review of the criminal appeal system.
Paul is licenced under the Direct Access Scheme and can accept instructions directly from members of the public in appropriate cases.
Paul was appointed a Recorder in 2019 and sits in both the Crown Court and the Family Court.
"A highly effective and meticulous barrister whose knowledge of criminal appeals is second to none." - Chambers and Partners 2023
"One of the foremost appeals lawyers. He is tremendous." - Chambers and Partners 2022
"Paul's expertise in appeal matters is exceptional. He has an impressive meticulous attention to detail - ascertains key issues and tactically is very astute. He's a pleasure to work with." - Legal 500 2022
Roger Mootoo (and others)  Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago: The Appellants had been convicted in 2017 and sentenced to 28 years imprisonment with hard labour. The prosecution alleged that the deceased had been killed in a drug related revenge attack, and relied on the accomplice evidence of Roderique. The Court made comprehensive findings in relation to adverse publicity, non-disclosure (describing the prosecution stance at trial as having generated “profound disquiet”), the need for an accomplice warning, misdirection on lies, and the unviability of the prosecution case on manslaughter. They further found for the appellants on the rare ground of lurking doubt. The prosecution did not seek a retrial.
Kenyatta Boynes : Mr. Boynes had been convicted of murder and attempted murder. The prosecution alleged that this was a revenge attack arising out of a drug deal. The grounds related to prosecution impropriety, CCTV and identification evidence.
Adrian Jones (Deceased):  EWCA Crim 929: Mr. Jones had been convicted of the murder of a stranger in 2008. Following an unsuccessful appeal by trial counsel, Paul drafted submissions to the CCRC who referred the case back to the CACD. The grounds were based on fresh psychiatric evidence about Mr. Jones mental state at the time of the killing, the presence of schizophrenia, the interplay with drug abuse and its impact on his behaviour. Fresh psychiatric evidence was called by both parties. Sadly, Mr. Jones died before the appeal hearing. The Vice President of the CACD (Fulford LJ) stated: Mr Taylor and (prosecution counsel) have guided the court with skill through a factual, psychiatric and jurisprudential labyrinth.”
Minhas  2 Cr App R (S) 6: Paul represented Mr. Minhas in his appeal against sentence. It was submitted that there were compassionate grounds to reduce his sentence to reflect the difficulties that he would face in prison as a result of his motor neuron disease (MND) and that a deterioration in his condition since the date of sentence had the consequence that he would face exceptionally severe hardship when serving his sentence.
Gary Robinson  EWCA Crim 923: Paul was assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals to represent GR who had been convicted of murder in 2007. The case involved fresh expert evidence relating to the analysis of CCTV footage.
Warrington Philips v State of St. Kitts and Nevis  UKPC: Paul was leading counsel in this murder appeal from St. Kitts and Nevis to the Privy Council. The grounds were based on fresh DNA expert evidence, errors in the summing up, and criticism of prosecutor and trial defence counsel.
Baker  EWCA Crim 2843: B had been convicted of murder. Paul argued that the Judge misdirected the jury in relation to diminished responsibility.
Petrolini  EWCA Crim 2055;  MHLR 308: P had been convicted of murder in 1994 when he was 19; the defence of diminished responsibility having failed. He had carried out a random killing with his co-defendant as part of a fictional "SAS initiative test". The conviction was quashed and manslaughter and a hospital order substituted on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence.
Jones (aka Malik) : J had been convicted of murder. The grounds criticised the judge’s failure to leave self-defence to the jury.
Ahad  EWCA Crim 2736: A’s murder conviction was quashed on the basis of a misdirection on joint enterprise. Manslaughter was substituted together with a determinate sentence.
Lewis  EWCA Crim 151: L had been convicted of manslaughter after he chased after a student who then ran into an oncoming car and was killed. The grounds criticised the judge’s directions on foresight.
Hill  EWCA Crim 76: H’s murder conviction was referred back to the CACD by the CCRC. The grounds were based on fresh neuro-psychiatric evidence relating to brain damage caused by alcoholism, and its impact on defences of diminished responsibility and provocation.
Williams (Dean)  EWCA Crim 2749;  1 Cr App R 23. DW was convicted of murder. Paul drafted submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission based on a critique of the psychiatric evidence prepared for trial. The CCRC initially refused to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal. Paul then drafted proceedings for judicial review of the CCRC’s refusal. The CCRC agreed to re-consider and then referred the case back to the CACD. Paul was lead at the appeal by Rebecca Trowler KC. The conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered.
Evans  EWCA Crim 2243;  Crim. L.R. 491: E had pleaded guilty to murder. It was argued that the plea had been entered on erroneous legal advice and that fresh psychiatric evidence, and expert evidence relating to memory recall, supported defences of diminished responsibility and provocation.
Erskine  Crim EWCA 1425;  2 Cr App R 29: (“The Stockwell Strangler”.) The CACD quashed E’s 7 murder convictions and substituted manslaughter and a hospital order. This was a guideline case on raising fresh psychiatric evidence on appeal in support of diminished responsibility.
Symmons  EWCA Crim 734; 173 C.L. & J. 270. S had been convicted of murdering his wife. Fresh psychiatric evidence was relied on in relation to S’s fitness to give evidence at trial, provocation and diminished responsibility.
Dass:  M.H.L.R. 288: D had been convicted of the murders of his grandparents and uncle. The convictions were quashed on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence showing that D was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, substitution of manslaughter and discretionary life sentences.
Coard and others  UKPC 7. C was the former deputy prime minister of Grenada. In 1986, C and others were convicted of the murder of the then Prime Minister and ten others. C and the others were sentenced to death. Although the sentences were later commutated to natural life imprisonment by the Governor General, the Privy Council agreed that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional, and that the substituted life sentences had been wrongly imposed without any judicial consideration. Consequently, the cases were re-mitted to the local court for re-sentencing.
Waters  EWCA Crim 139: W’s conviction for murdering his baby referred back to the CACD by the CCRC on the basis of fresh medical evidence relating to the time of death.
Hendy  EWCA Crim 819;  2 Cr App R 33: H was convicted of the random murder of a stranger. The conviction was quashed and manslaughter and a hospital order substituted on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence supporting diminished responsibility.
Bath  EWCA Crim 862: B pleaded guilty to murder and to an offence of arson with intent to endanger life. The murder conviction was quashed on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence and manslaughter and a hospital order substituted.
Anciuaux v CCRC (17.3.06) Admin Court. This was an application for permission to judicially review the CCRC's refusal to refer A’s murder conviction back to the CACD. It was argued that the CCRC had erred in rejecting fresh psychiatric evidence, and the submission that the trial judge had misdirected the jury in relation to diminished responsibility.
Graham Coutts  UKHL 39;  1 WLR 2154: GC was convicted of murder. The conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered. This guideline case was argued before the CACD and then the House of Lords. It sets out the circumstances in which a trial judge is under a duty to leave an alternative defence open to the jury, even if the prosecution and defence object.
The Queen (On Application by Nicholas Farnell) v The Criminal Cases Review Commission  EWHC 835 (Admin); Times, June 2, 2003; Independent, May 2, 2003: This was a challenge by way of Judicial Review to the decision of the CCRC not to refer NF’s murder conviction back to the CACD. Paul was instructed on behalf of the CCRC.
Mackenney  EWCA Crim 3643;  2 Cr App R 5 CA. The CCRC referred M’s four murder convictions to the CACD. The issues raised at appeal were the admissibility of psychiatric evidence as to the co-defendant’s ability to give credible evidence for the prosecution, the difficulty in detecting that his evidence was not reliable, and other evidence undermining his credibility. Expert evidence was relied upon in relation to psychiatric issues and from an expert in fire damage. The CACD quashed all four murder convictions.
Hampton and Brown  EWCA Crim 2139; (2004) Times, October 13, 2004;  Crim LR. This was an appeal against murder convictions based on fresh alibi evidence.
Mahwhinney  EWCA Crim 2234: M had been convicted of murder. The appeal was based on fresh evidence undermining a witness at trial, and criticism of the direction on joint enterprise direction.
Gibbs  EWCA Crim 1435: G’s murder conviction was quashed on the basis that fresh psychiatric evidence supported a defence of diminished responsibility. A retrial was ordered.
Davidson (Leroy)  EWCA Crim 2428; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 1088: D was convicted of murder. He was aged 15 at the time of the killing. The conviction was quashed as a result of misdirections regarding joint enterprise and adverse inference. Foster  EWCA Crim 178 CA: F had been convicted of murder. He had made admissions to the police and then in evidence at trial. The CCRC referred this historic conviction to the CACD. The grounds centred on breaches of PACE, the Judges’ Rules, and fresh psychological evidence relating to F’s vulnerability.
Downing (Stephen)  EWCA Crim 63 CA. SD had been convicted of murder in 1974 when he was aged 17. He had subsequently served 27 years in prison. The CCRC referred the case back to the CACD. The conviction was quashed on the basis that there had been significant breaches of the Judges’ Rules prior to SD making “admissions”, and that the forensic evidence at trial was flawed.
Smalling  UKPC 12; (2001) 58 WIR 341 PC: This was an appeal to the Privy Council from Jamaica. S was convicted of three murders and sentenced to death. The grounds raised fresh psychiatric evidence that impacted on S’s culpability. The matter was remitted to the local court.
Charlie Smith  EWCA Crim 840 CA: The CCRC referred the murder conviction back to the CACD on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence that had been produced after CS killed his prison cell mate whilst serving life for the first killing. The murder conviction was quashed and manslaughter substituted.
Solomon  UKPC 59; (1999) 57 WIR 432 PC: This was an appeal to the Privy Council from Trinidad against a murder conviction. The grounds related to fresh evidence of mental illness. The matter was remitted to the local court.
Ravalia (16.10.1998) CA: R killed his wife and was convicted of murder. The conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered on the basis of serious errors by the trial lawyers and fresh psychiatric evidence.
Hobson (Kathleen):  1 Cr. App. R. 31: This was an appeal against a murder conviction based on fresh psychiatric evidence of “Battered Women’s Syndrome”. The conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered.
Campbell (1997) 1 Cr App R 199: The Home Secretary referred this murder conviction back to the CACD. The appeal was allowed on the basis that expert neuro-psychiatric evidence showed that C suffered from brain damage to the front temporal lobe arising from epilepsy and this supported a defence of diminished responsibility.
Henry (1996) WIR PC: Appeal to the Privy Council against conviction for murder, sentenced to death. Grounds based on the improper use of emotive language by the judge.
Holder  UKPC 27; (1996) 49 WIR 450 PC: This was an appeal to the Privy Council from Trinidad against a murder conviction. H had been sentenced to death. The grounds criticised the directions on joint enterprise and jury irregularity.
Alfred Codrington  UKPC 6; (1996) 48 WIR 86: In this appeal from Belize against a murder conviction to the Privy Council it was argued that as a result of flawed legal advice C had been denied the opportunity of stating his defence to the jury. The appeal was allowed.
Logan  UKPC 64;  AC 871 PC. In this appeal to the Privy Council from Belize against a murder conviction (sentenced to death), the issues of the PC’s jurisdiction and the misdirections on provocation were considered. Conviction and sentence of death were quashed, and manslaughter substituted.
Taylor  UKPC 35;  46 WIR 318 PC. T appealed to the Privy Council against his conviction for murder in Jamaica. The grounds argued that it had been an abuse of process to order a retrial.
Hopson  UKPC 20;  45 WIR 307 PC. In this appeal to the Privy Council from Jamaica H’s murder conviction (sentenced to death) was quashed. The grounds raised criticism of the judge’s direction on identification and the dying declaration of the deceased. The conviction was quashed.
CS  EWCA Crim 2135: CS was convicted of 3 counts relating to sexual assault against a child under 13. The grounds contended that the judge should have given an alibi direction when there was evidence that CS was living elsewhere during the indictment period, and that the verdicts were inconsistent with acquittals on 7 other counts.
P (J)  EWCA Crim 2707: P had been convicted of 7 counts relating to sexual offences against his young daughter and sister in law. Some years after the trial his daughter contacted the police and retracted the allegations she had made at trial. The appeal centred on the approach that the CACD should take to the “fresh” retraction evidence.
A(M)  EWCA Crim 905: A was convicted of 4 counts of rape against his step son. The prosecution case was based in part on the findings of a medical expert. The grounds challenged the reliability of this evidence and relied on a critique of the expert’s methodology in an unrelated civil case. The convictions were quashed.
C (A)  EWCA Crim 2138: D was convicted of 2 counts of rape against his wife. The CCRC referred the case to the CACD on the basis that there was fresh evidence that arose post trial which affected the credibility of the complainant. The fresh evidence included statements on a benefits claim form and in an unrelated civil case. The convictions were quashed.
MG  EWCA Crim 1462: MG was convicted of rape and indecent assault against family members. He was sentenced to 14 years. The grounds centred on the failure of the CPS to make full disclosure, and on a report from an expert in genetics. Paul drafted submissions to the Registrar, Single Judge, and the grounds of appeal, as well as the submissions to the CCRC.
EW  EWCA Crim (Rape, fresh evidence, request to CA for CCRC investigation). Paul’s grounds related to the admissibility of expert opinion that purported to show the link between reported rapes and the absence of genital injuries, misdirections and criticisms of trial counsel.
Hamadi (Z)  EWCA 3048: H was convicted of rape. The grounds of appeal centred on the extent of the restrictions imposed by section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, and fresh expert evidence relating to DNA findings.
Qerkini  EWCA Crim 2211: This case involved the sentencing framework for the top tier of class A drug importations. The street value of the drugs was estimated to be in excess of £166m. The judge stated that it was difficult to imagine a much larger scale of organized Class A drug supplying. Paul argued that the sentence failed to take account of those passed in linked operations.
Stringfellow  EWCA Crim 2825; Times, November 14. S was convicted of conspiracy to supply a class A drug. He was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment. The grounds related to the failure of the trial court clerk to follow the correct procedure when taking the verdicts.
Iroegbu  EWCA Crim 2317: CCRC reference based on fresh evidence relating to the informant status of a prosecution witness.
Martindale  EWCA Crim 1975: M’s conviction for conspiracy to supply a class A drug was referred back to the CACD by the CCRC. It was quashed on the basis of previously undisclosed prosecution material that undermined the main witnesses credibility.
Claydon  EWCA Crim 1359; (2004) 1 WLR 1575 CA: This was an appeal against the Judge’s findings in a preparatory hearing, and raised questions of the CACD’s jurisdiction in such cases. (junior csl)
Islam  EWCA Crim 1089: I’s conviction for assault was quashed on the basis of fresh evidence of civil proceedings that undermined the credibility of the complainant in the criminal matter.
Iredale  EWCA Crim 646: I’s conviction for gbh was referred back to the CACD by the CCRC. It was quashed on the basis of previously undisclosed police photographs. Allen  EWCA Crim 1607: Paul was junior counsel. A had been convicted of robbery. The CCRC referred the case back to the CACD. The conviction was quashed on the basis that A’s alleged admissions had been wrongly admitted in evidence.
Mulcahy  EWCA Crim 106: M had been convicted of robbery. The conviction was referred back to the CACD by the CCRC on the basis of fresh forensic evidence relating to fingerprints. The conviction was quashed.
Fallon  Crim LR 591 CA: F’s conviction was quashed as a result of misdirections regarding corroboration.
Colborne  EWCA Crim 286;  MHLR 381: C had been sentenced to an IPP. Fresh psychiatric evidence demonstrated that C had been and was still suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. A hospital order was substituted.
In Re Gill  1 W.L.R. 1441  2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 26: Paul successfully argued that in pre-2003 cases a mandatory lifer’s “exceptional progress” post sentence should result in a reduction in the minimum term.
Roden  EWCA Crim 1121: R pleaded guilty to two counts of arson with intent to endanger life. A hospital order was substituted for his sentence of imprisonment on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence).
Bradish  EWCA Crim 2829: B was convicted of offences involving 23 armed robberies. The grounds challenged the imposition of life sentences or the length of the tariff.
Hempston  EWCA Crim 2869;  MHLR 99: H had been convicted of rape and an offence under section 21 of the OAPA 1861. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He had been detained for 28 years. Paul drafted the application to the CCRC who referred the sentence back to the CACD. A hospital order was substituted on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence.
Ashbridge  2 Cr App R(S) 408: A was convicted of kidnapping and malicious wounding. The appeal related to the length of sentence for kidnapping.
S (Paul Lee)  M.H.L.R. 46: S was convicted of rape. The appeal was based on fresh psychiatric evidence regarding S’s mental state. The sentence of imprisonment was quashed and a hospital order substituted.
Sewell (2000). S pleaded guilty to four counts of rape on a boy; a count of indecency on a male and gross indecency with a child. A sentence of discretionary life imprisonment was passed. The appeal challenged the calculation of the length of the minimum term. It was reduced from 10 years to 6 years.
Mynors  2 Cr App R(S) 279: M pleaded guilty to an offence of destroying property, being reckless as to whether life was endangered. The sentence was challenged on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence.
Madden:  EWCA Crim 2258: The minimum term in the mandatory life sentence for murder was reduced as a result of fresh psychiatric evidence.Symmons:  EWCA Crim 1304; S had been convicted of his wife’s murder. The appeal against sentence related to S’s old age (78) at his earliest release date.
Symmons:  EWCA Crim 1304; S had been convicted of his wife’s murder. The appeal against sentence related to S’s old age (78) at his earliest release date.
Hamadi (Z)  EWCA 3048: H was convicted of rape. The appeal against sentence challenged the judge’s finding that H presented “a significant risk of causing serious harm” which justified an IPP.
Beatty  EWCA Crim 2349; (2006) 92 B.M.L.R. 22;  M.H.L.R. 333: B pleaded guilty to rape, kidnapping and making threats to kill. He was given a discretionary life sentence. An application was made to the CCRC to refer the sentence back to the CACD on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence. The CCRC initially refused. Paul then drafted proceedings for judicial review of the CCRC’s refusal. The CCRC agreed to re- consider and then referred the case back to the CACD. A hospital order was substituted for the life sentence.
Gibbs  EWCA Crim 1762;  1 Cr App R 3: This was a guideline case before a 5 judge Court of Appeal which set out the correct approach to the setting of minimum term of life sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003)
Szczerba  EWCA Crim 440;  2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 86: The CACD set out guidelines for setting the “relevant part” of discretionary life sentences.
Gabb (1999) CA: Attorney-General’s Reference; seeking to increase sentence to life imprisonment
Daddow (1996) 2 Cr App R(S) 10 CA: C was convicted of conspiracy to murder. Her husband was shot dead by a man whom C had paid to carry out the murder. Appeal against the sentence of 18 years' imprisonment based on psychiatric evidence.
Hall (1996) 2 Cr App R(S) 406 CA: H was convicted of the manslaughter of his baby. The appeal challenged the level of the sentence.
Hefferman (1996) 1 Cr App R(S) 90 CA: This appeal related to the level of sentence for terrorist offences. H was a member of the INLA and had been convicted of conspiracy to cause explosions.
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 serving mandatory life sentence prisoners (that is, those convicted of murder) could have their minimum term or “tariff” set by a High Court Judge as opposed to the previous practice where it was set by the Home Secretary. Paul was involved in drafting a number of the written submissions in these applications.
Trusler  EWHC: T pleaded guilty to two counts of murder. The minimum term recommended by the sentencing judge was reduced as a result of fresh neuro- psychological evidence of the effects of historic brain damage.
Storey  EWHC 3256 (QB): JS’s minimum term was reduced from the figure recommended by the trial judge as a result of her exceptional progress in prison. Steele  EWHC 1176 (QB): S, aged 19, had murdered her abusive partner.
Erskine  EWHC 2703 (QB): E had been convicted of 7 counts of murder. The submissions were made on the basis that the medical evidence showed that E’s mental state reduced his culpability. The minimum term was set at 40 years. [The convictions were later quashed on appeal and a hospital order substituted.]
Cornelius  EWHC 1010 (QB): Guilty plea to murder of a 16 year old.
Iqbal  EWHC 516 (QB): 8 murders of the members of one family in an arson attack. The minimum term was set at 22 years.
Ali  EWHC 1551 (QB): The victim had been attacked by a group of men in balaclavas, and armed with a hunting knife and CS gas. The judge described the killing as a racially motivated murder. The submissions argued that A had a legitimate expectation that his minimum term should not exceed the 16 years recommended by the trial judge. The minimum term was set at 16 years.
Paul has published the following book and articles:-
Taylor on Criminal Appeals (Editor: OUP 2012) Reviews of the book.
The following case commentaries were first published by Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited in Criminal Law Review and are reproduced by agreement with the publishers.
Taylor (Bonnett): Fresh evidence on appeal (Case Comment)  Crim. L.R. 10, 844-848 Fresh evidence, whether Pendleton test applied correctly.
R. v Pope (John Randall): (Case comment)  Crim. L.R. 421-425
Fresh evidence, safety of conviction - three trials - husband acquitted at first trial - appellant convicted at second trial following DNA evidence.
R v McCook (Jason): (Case comment)  Crim LR 350
Requirement of fresh appellate legal representatives to contact trial lawyers.
R v Gray and others (Case comment)  Crim LR 352
The Court of Appeal's approach to making loss of time directions and whether they are proportionate to the initial term of imprisonment.
R v George (Dwaine) (Case comment)  Crim LR 715 Admissibility of fresh expert evidence on appeal.
R v McCarthy (Jamie) (Case comment)  Crim LR 145 Challenging convictions based on guilty pleas; criticism of trial counsel.
Online book review of Lil Scherdin ed. Capital Punishment: As Hazard to a Sustainable Criminal Justice System? [Statute Law Review  1 July].
R v Stromberg: Paul Taylor KC explains the practical effects of this case for those advising a defendant convicted after what are thought to be wholly flawed proceeding.
This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Corporate Crime on 16 April 2018
The Jogee effect : Paul Taylor KC considers the evolution of the law on joint enterprise and impact on potential appellants convicted under the ‘old law’ (Counsel Magazine, September 2018).