Former criminal bar chair Jo Sidhu KC yesterday succeeded in having some of the 15 misconduct charges against him thrown out – but a bar tribunal has decided there is still a case to answer on others.

Sidhu initially faced charges relating to allegations by three women who were either law students or undergoing mini pupillage at the time. After hearing submissions yesterday morning, the Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service struck out some of the charges.

Sidhu had been accused of professional misconduct by sending Person 1 a WhatsApp message saying ‘Mmm, I would love to see you twerk’. Striking out the charge, the tribunal said Sidhu was ‘unwise’ to refer to twerking in his message, but it was ‘not seriously reprehensible’.

Read more

Another charge struck out was that, while he was in a position of trust, Sidhu invited Person 2, who was a mini pupil or work shadowing, back to his hotel, and that such a request was sexually motivated and inappropriate. Accepting Sidhu’s submission that there was no case to answer, the tribunal said there was no evidence she went back to his hotel room or that he invited her to his hotel room.

A meeting facilitated by Sidhu with Person 3 at a bar, which took place late at night, ‘did not cross the threshold for seriously reprehensible behaviour’, the tribunal said.

By a majority view, the tribunal struck out charges in relation to Sidhu asking Person 3 to conceal and/or not disclose his conduct by deleting electronic messages and/or use platforms that facilitated deletion. The tribunal said there had been no investigation underway at the time of the charges so there was ‘no question of the respondent trying to destroy evidence or thwart an investigation’.

However, the tribunal decided there was a case to answer in relation to some of the charges in relation to Person 3. These include, for instance, a charge in relation to engaging in sexually explicit WhatsApp message exchanges with Person 3.

During yesterday’s proceedings it emerged that 23 women have provided character references for Sidhu.

Fiona Horlick KC, for the Bar Standards Board, told the tribunal it was not apparent whether those who provided references were shown the charges or knew anything about Sidhu’s response to them. ‘If it’s a question of good character, obviously we know the respondent is a man of previous good character. But beyond that, what is the relevance and what weight can possibly be ascribed to these testimonials?’

Alisdair Williamson KC, for Sidhu, said the BSB opened its case on the basis that Sidhu was a sexual predator and the references spoke to their assessment of him.

The tribunal decided it would read the references and decide what weight, if any, should be attached to them.

The tribunal will hear closing submissions today.