High profile criminal barrister Jo Sidhu KC was today disbarred by a disciplinary tribunal after being found guilty of sexual misconduct. The sanction followed a tribunal hearing at which found the former chair of the Criminal Bar Association guilty of inappropriate behaviour for inviting a young woman to stay overnight in his hotel room during a mini pupillage.
Sidhu was cleared of the majority of misconduct charges against him relating to inappropriate behaviour with three women who were either law students or undergoing mini pupillage at the time of the alleged incidents. Of the 15 charges, five were struck out after the tribunal found there was no case to answer and three, in relation to Person 2 who was undertaking a mini-pupillage placement, were found proved.
Sidhu, who appeared remotely via video link today, spoke only to say good morning to the panel and confirm he could hear and see proceedings.
In written submissions on sanction, Fiona Horlick KC for the Bar Standards Board said: ‘The serious sexual misconduct in this case was overwhelmingly likely to have caused long term harm and it would have been foreseeable to any reasonable person.
‘This case, serious sexual misconduct involving a very senior and well-known male silk committed against a young, vulnerable mini pupil where he abused his professional position and abused the trust she had him, must be marked by the most serious of sanctions. There is no other sanction that would adequately mark the seriousness of the proven misconduct nor would any lesser sanction act as a deterrent or encourage reporting or restore public trust and confidence in the bar or assist diversity, recruitment and retention at the bar.
‘Any sanction other than disbarment would send a signal that this type of misconduct could be consistent with a continued career at the bar for the barrister involved and that victims of sexual misconduct are not protected.’
Sidhu ‘acted in a clear breach of his position of power and authority and in breach of the trust that Person 2 had in him’ and had ‘complete control and responsibility for the circumstances’, she said.
She added: ‘He was aware both of the power disparity and her trust and he deliberately used both to effect the sexual misconduct.’
‘[Sidhu] put his own sexual gratification not only above Person 2’s interest but in fact, completely ignored her interests.’ She said Sidhu’s misconduct had caused harm to Person 2 which ‘persists to the present day’ and ‘such behaviour by a very senior, very high profile member of the profession has the capacity to cause a severe impact on the public confidence in the legal profession’.
Horlick added: ‘[Sidhu] has shown a complete lack of remorse and an extremely concerning lack of insight into his misconduct.
‘[Sidhu] has never apologised to her and there is no indication that he has any understanding whatsoever that his behaviour was utterly wrong, inappropriate, abusive and highly damaging.
‘He was a very senior member of the bar who must have known how wrong his behaviour was and who should have been leading by example. Aside from the harm caused to Person 2 herself, he has no insight into the damage caused to the Bar and to the recruitment and retention of women to the profession.’
Alisdair Williamson KC, for Sidhu, accepted Sidhu’s misconduct as a ‘prominent figure’ would impact on public confidence on the legal profession’ but said Sidhu’s behaviour in the six years since would mean the impact was ‘less damaging than if there were repeated incidents’.
Sidhu had ‘undertaken 82 hours of psychotherapy’ and ‘voluntarily abandoned all his positions…at the inception of these proceedings’, Williamson said. He added: ‘You will be entitled to say that is someone who has taken seriously these proceedings and is attempting to take steps to ensure that he is not in harm’s away again and no likelihood of repetition and that the course of psychotherapy is designed to gain insight into his behaviour in this and more generally.’
The tribunal heard that Sidhu, who did not give evidence, had not provided any statement to the tribunal.
Williamson said: ‘There is no evidence before you [about Sidhu’s remorse and insight] but you can infer from his position that he must regret the impact both on him and the bar.’ Speaking in mitigation, Williamson said: ‘He has dedicated his whole life, his whole working life, to the bar.’
The five-person panel deliberated for two hours before returning with a majority verdict of three to two on disbarrment.
Sidhu KC was chair of the Criminal Bar Association during 2022 when barristers launched industrial action over legal aid fees. The criminal barrister, of Southall in West London, studied PPE at Oxford as an undergraduate, undertook a law conversion course at the age of 25 and practised in criminal law for the next three decades.
No costs orders were made. Sidhu has 21 days from today to appeal.
