Barrister: Tribunal worried about competence
A barrister who made improper and inaccurate submissions during his closing speech in the Crown Court has been suspended for his “alarmingly incompetent” behaviour.
Rajiv Chopra also cannot return to practice after his four-month suspension until he has completed 45 hours of continuing professional development (CPD).
The Bar disciplinary tribunal said that in his evidence, “Mr Chopra portrayed himself as an experienced and capable criminal advocate who was successful in achieving results favourable to his clients. We do not share Mr Chopra’s view as to his professional capabilities”.
Mr Chopra, who was a solicitor for 16 years before being called in 2020, was defending a Romanian man on trial for engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.
During his closing speech, he referred to one of the prosecution witnesses wearing “quite thick” glasses when arriving at court. The barrister later said it was an issue he had forgotten to raise during cross-examination.
The tribunal said this was an attempt to make the jury think the eyewitness had defective vision and thus could not have seen what he described.
“We find that this was a point which Mr Chopra could not properly make to the jury, it being unsupported by evidence and speculative.”
He then told the jury that his client had answered questions in his police interview despite his solicitor’s advice to the contrary, when in fact he did not know what advice had been given.
When referring to the consequences of a conviction, Mr Chopra told the jury that his client would be deported. “We find that assertion was untrue,” said the tribunal. “Deportation would depend upon sentence and the view taken by the Home Office.”
Finally, when citing alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of prosecution witnesses given in court and in their witness statements, Mr Chopra told the jury that “if you wish, we can provide you the witness statements to read”.
However, because the statements had not been exhibited as evidence in the trial, it was not legally permissible to do this. The tribunal said: “We find that his belief was based upon ignorance of the law of evidence on this point. That ignorance persists.”
In each instance, the tribunal found that Mr Chopra believed what he was saying to be true. He “simply did not address his mind” to the issue at hand.
At the end of the speech, the judge sent the jury out as both she and prosecution counsel believed some of the comments to be improper. Mr Chopra acknowledged at the time that he should not have said them, describing them as “a slip of the tongue”.
The judge considered aborting the trial but decided she could repair the damage done by way of further directions to the jury. It continued and the client was cleared. The judge then complained to the Bar Standards Board (BSB).
The tribunal found that “the clearly inappropriate remarks made by Mr Chopra to the jury arose out of his incompetence rather than anything more”.
As a result, it cleared him of lacking integrity – “Inadvertent transgression does not have the flavour of dishonesty or sharp practice that is associated with lack of integrity,” it said – or being reckless.
It explained: “Whilst the BSB has not proved the elements of knowledge or recklessness on the part of Mr Chopra, they have proved behaviour of an alarmingly incompetent nature.”
The tribunal added: “A reading of his closing speech to the jury shows it to be unstructured, unfocused and ill-prepared. Insofar as Mr Chopra suggests that this was due to his poor health on the day, we would apply a similar description to Mr Chopra’s oral evidence before us…
“Mr Chopra often does not think about what he says. Certainly before us there seemed to be a tendency to say whatever he believed might assist at the time without great thought.”
The tribunal was unconvinced by the barrister’s evidence of being ill on day – it was “curious” that he did not mention this to the trial judge.
It was also not sufficient to “cause or explain his conduct before the jury”; and even if he was so unfit that he could not professionally represent his client, “it would afford no excuse”.
“The greater relevance would be in supporting Mr Chopra’s suggestion that his speech is not representative of his usual professionalism in court.
“Having seen Mr Chopra give evidence to us… we do not accept that his closing speech was an uncharacteristic performance by him. We reject his suggestion that he was just having a particularly bad day.”
Testimonials indicated he worked hard on behalf of his clients. “However we are of the view that Mr Chopra needs to have a greater understanding of where his duty to his client ends and his duty to the court begins.”
In deciding on sanction, it was discovered “by chance” that in 2023 Mr Chopra received a formal rebuke from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for sending an offensive email.
“This did not sit comfortably with the evidence that Mr Chopra had given on oath before the tribunal when he told us that he had not been the subject of a complaint to the BSB before or since. Whilst factually accurate, this did create a false impression.”
The tribunal said its findings raised “a large question mark over Mr Chopra’s competence and professionalism as a barrister”.
He was suspended for four months and would not be able to return to practice before providing the BSB with proof that he has completed 45 hours of CPD, of which at least 20% must include personal face-to-face attendance, at least three hours must be training in professional ethics at the Bar, and at least 30 hours must be specific to criminal practice and include a course on the law of evidence.
The tribunal did not award the BSB its costs for the main hearing (there was a subsequent one on the CPD element) because the regulator did not provide a schedule of costs 24 hours before the hearing, as required by the rules.
Leave a Comment