SIdhu: KC was a role model
The Bar Disciplinary Tribunal that disbarred Jo Sidhu KC was “certainly not wrong” to regard his status in the profession as rendering his conduct towards a mini-pupil particularly serious, the High Court has ruled.
Dismissing Mr Sidhu’s appeal against the sanction, Mr Justice Choudhury said: “The misconduct in this case did not result from an unwise, spontaneous and consensual sexual encounter in a hotel.
“This was misconduct that involved a senior silk and prominent member of the Bar using his position effectively to pressurise a young female mini-pupil into a compromising situation in order to gratify his own sexual desires.
“The tribunal was entitled, as a specialist panel of the professional regulator, to view such conduct as particularly serious and not adequately addressed by anything less than the indicative sanction of disbarment.”
The judge said Mr Sidhu’s successful career at the Bar and his contribution to the profession – “and implicitly the public interest in not ending the career of such a person” – were taken into account by the tribunal.
“However, the tribunal was entitled to consider that such matters did not outweigh the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession as well as the other purposes for imposing sanctions for misconduct; including the maintenance and promotion of high standards and deterrence.”
Last May 2025, Navjot ‘Jo’ Sidhu KC was disbarred by a majority of three to two after three charges of professional misconduct were found to be proved.
They related to events in 2018 when he invited a mini-pupil up to his hotel room, ostensibly to discuss a case he was working on, and then proceeded to insist that she stay the night in his room and to sleep on his bed instead of the sofa before engaging in sexual kissing and touching.
He was cleared of multiple charges in relation to two other women.
Mr Sidhu contended on appeal that disbarment was a disproportionate sanction and he should have been suspended instead.
Choudhury J rejected his contention that the tribunal had wrongly assessed the seriousness of the misconduct.
It applied the “structured and detailed approach” set out in its sanctions guidance and was not wrong to consider the conduct particularly serious given Mr Sidhu’s “seniority and prominent position at the Bar”.
Mr Sidhu’s counsel argued that, at the time, he held no leadership or representative positions at the Bar.
“I do not accept that argument,” said the judge. “[He] was a successful silk of six years’ standing, which was in itself a significant indicator of seniority and the esteem in which he was held within the profession…
“He had previously been elected president of the Society of Asian Lawyers, and held senior roles in the Bar Council (vice chair of the equality and diversity committee) and his inn.
“On any reasonable, objective view, the appellant was, even in November 2018, a very senior and prominent barrister; that he became even more so upon being elected to the chair of the [Criminal Bar Association] and leading the Bar strike some years later does not diminish his many impressive achievements up to that point.”
A silk was “a role model” for more junior and aspiring members of the profession, the judge continued and the tribunal found the mini-pupil was “awed by his status” and feared he could damage her career.
Choudhury J said: “It is particularly egregious when the Bar is let down by someone who has attained a rank that will remain elusive for the majority.
“That is not to apply a different standard of conduct depending on rank, but merely to recognise that those in elevated positions can cause even greater harm to the profession by their misconduct.”
The judge also rejected Mr Sidhu’s submissions that the tribunal’s approach to the aggravating and mitigating factors was wrong, that the decision on sanction was disproportionate, and the reasons given were inadequate.
Among the arguments was that, having found the sexual activity was not unwanted, the tribunal ought to have proceeded on the basis that it was wanted or consensual.
But Choudhury J noted that the case had proceeded on the criminal standard of proof. “That means that the tribunal could not be satisfied to the high standard of proof required that the activity was unwanted.
“However, it does not follow from that conclusion that the tribunal must be taken to have found that the activity was wanted or consensual.”
Similarly, it was not required to treat the activity as consensual for the purposes of assessing seriousness. “The fact remained (and the tribunal found) that such activity was inappropriate, and that the appellant knew or ought to have known that was the case.”
Leave a Comment