Allegations against former CBA chair Jo Sidhu ‘exceptionally serious’, tribunal told

Senior barrister and former Criminal Bar Association chair Jo Sidhu’s disciplinary tribunal should go ahead due to ‘profound public interest’, a hearing has been told.

Following the dismissal of a privacy and anonymity application yesterday, the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service’s five-person panel heard a stay application, also brought by Sidhu.

Alisdair Williamson KC, for Sidhu, said the stay was requested on medical grounds, which were heard in private, and due to questions over disclosure. He said: ‘It is more an issue of whether it is possible to resolve these issues in the timeframe available to us. For the reasons I touched on earlier, that may be of grave concern.’ 

Williamson told the tribunal that the reports against Sidhu were made on the 3 and 4 November 2022 about events that took place six to eight years previously.

Williamson said: ‘It beggars belief those reports could have been made in such close proximity to each other without some form of coordination. That is a legitimate question. It is a matter for proper enquiry as to whether there was any form of coordination by others against the respondent because that timing raises that question.

‘I am not using the word collusion because at that moment I do not have a basis on which I could say that, and that is the purpose of disclosure.’

Sidhu, who appeared remotely on camera for the hearing, is alleged to have behaved inappropriately with three women. He faces 15 charges: 14 concern a breach of core duty 5, which relates to trust and confidence which the public places on barristers and in the profession, and one concerns a breach of core duty 3, which states barristers must act with honesty and integrity.

Fiona Horlick KC, for the Bar Standards Board, said none of the three complainants knew each other or had met each other ‘and that still remains the case’.

She added: ‘[There] is simply no evidence of collusion between these complainants. They were not known by each other, they have separate reasons for coming forward when they did. For Person 1 there was a reason why at that particular time that she felt she had to [come forward]. As for Person 2, there was a dinner at which there was some discussion with other people.

‘The background fact is there has been talk at the bar for quite a long period of time, and then she was eventually contacted by one of the people at the dinner and asked if she would chat to the Criminal Bar Association about what she had reported at the dinner.

‘Can I be absolutely clear here, none of these three complainants know each other or have met each other and that still remains the case.’

‘The allegations against Mr Sidhu, the way we put it, are exceptionally serious. There is a profound public interest in there being a hearing and there not being a stay. It may be that I need not go into this matter any further than to flag as a headline but the importance of these matters being ventilated cannot be underestimated. There are very real ramifications not only for the regulatory process but also for the fundamental importance of allegations of this type against a member of the bar being heard and being adjudicated upon.

‘Thirdly [I] stress the interests of these three complainants. They have come forward, they have been, you have seen their statements…significantly affected they say in their statements by Mr Sidhu’s alleged behaviour. Whilst this matter is not resolved they are in a state of stress as well and it is in their best interest that this matter is resolved now within this hearing window.’

The tribunal dismissed Sidhu’s application for a stay finding that ‘sufficient safeguards are in place for the respondent [that] it is perfectly possible for there to be a fair trial’.

The chair of the panel, Her Honour Janet Waddicor, said the panel was not satisfied that any of the disclosure issues referred to in the application placed Sidhu’s legal team ‘in a position where they are unable to deal with his case fairly’ or ‘where they have insufficient time’.

She added that the panel were ‘unanimous’ in their view that sufficient safeguards were in place for a fair trial.

She said: ‘Fairness in a trial is not simply fairness to one side, it is fairness to both sides and Miss Horlick pointed out the complainants in this case have had the prospect of this trial hanging over them. They are not charged with anything but that is a factor the court can take into account.

‘The application for a stay is refused, it is possible to have a fair trial.’

Sidhu denies all charges against him.