Leading barrister ‘has case to answer’ after allegations of sexual misconduct

A leading criminal barrister facing allegations of sexual misconduct brought by three young women failed yesterday to persuade a tribunal that he had no case to answer on the majority of the charges brought against him. The five-person panel convened for Jo Sidhu KC’s ‘fitness to practise’ tribunal heard arguments that 11 of the 15 charges against him should be struck out. As in previous hearings in his case, Sidhu was not present in person but attended the hearing by Zoom, having asked for reasonable adjustments for reasons the media was not allowed to hear. The panel determined that five charges did not meet the evidential threshold required for final determination, but said that six of the most serious allegations would go forward.

The single charge relating to one of three female complainants was struck out, so the case now rests on the accounts of two complainants, known as Person 2 and Person 3.

Sidhu, a former chair of the Criminal Bar Association, now faces a total of 10 charges brought by the Bar Standards Board (BSB). At the time of the behaviour complained of, Person 2 was a paralegal in her 20s who was working towards a career as a barrister, and Person 3 was an 18-year-old law student in her first year at university.

Charges relating to Person 2 include:

• That Sidhu said that Person 2’s bum looked good in a dress she was wearing, and that he told her he did not have sex with his wife anymore, in circumstances where he had initiated contact by sending her an unsolicited message via LinkedIn.
• When they were attending a trial outside of London, and while in a position of trust having offered her a mini-pupillage, late one evening Sidhu invited her to stay overnight in his hotel room, changed into pyjamas, and then insisted she stay in his hotel bed.

The BSB says this was conduct of a sexual nature, and Sidhu knew or ought to have known it was inappropriate and/or unwanted given he was in a position of professional seniority to her and had encouraged her to apply for a mini-pupillage. Other factors lists by the board include that she was shadowing him at a trial in a town outside her home area, that she had clearly stated she wished to leave the hotel room, and that there was a clear power imbalance between them.

Charges relating to Person 3 include similar allegations regarding an invitation to his hotel room while Sidhu and she were away on a case. In addition, Sidhu is charged with

• requesting and/or encouraging the student to send him sexual photographs;
• suggesting that they meet at her student accommodation in London in order to have sex; and
• asking her to engage in sexual video calls and sexually explicit Whatsapp message exchanges to explore his fantasies.

The BSB said this was done despite knowing that Person 3 was very significantly younger than him, was just starting her law degree, came from a background that was under-represented in the law, and that as a prominent and powerful KC, he had offered her the chance to shadow him as an insight into a profession he knew she aspired to enter.

Much of what Sidhu is charged with is admitted. He has not yet entered a witness statement, but it is understood he maintains there is no case to answer as both relationships were with consenting adults and so no misconduct occurred.

Closing arguments will be made this morning.