KC is not a “predator” says his barrister
A prominent London King’s Counsel faces professional misconduct charges at a London disciplinary tribunal, with his defense team arguing against allegations involving two women seeking careers at the bar.
Navjot “Jo” Sidhu, 58, is responding to claims about his conduct with two aspiring barristers who had approached him for professional guidance.
The barrister for the Bar Standards Board, Fiona Horlick KC told the tribunal that ‘here we are dealing with conduct of a very senior silk in relation to a mini pupillage’ and to have ‘induced reluctant consent’ on the first night of Person 2’s mini pupillage breached Core Duty 5 of the BSB Handbook.
‘What he did afterwards was so confusing to her,’ Horlick added. ‘I use the word “gaslighting”. A woman in her situation made to feel she had almost imagined it,’ the Law Gazette reported.
The tribunal’s seven-day hearing examined ten charges of professional misconduct, though five charges were dismissed for not meeting required thresholds.
The case centers on events from late 2018, when Sidhu allegedly invited two women separately to his hotel room.
One woman was a paralegal completing work experience with him on a murder case, while the other was a first-year law student supported by the Sutton Trust, which promotes diversity in legal careers.
The paralegal, identified as Person 2, described an incident where she says Sidhu made advances despite her expressing wishes to leave or sleep on the sofa. She stated she didn’t want sexual activity to occur, though some contact took place.
The law student, Person 3, initially connected with Sidhu through LinkedIn seeking career advice. The tribunal heard that after their hotel meeting, where he allegedly touched her knee, communication resumed after a pause, leading to explicit messages which weren’t disclosed in court.
‘Her witness statement was an extremely frank recollection of what happened between the two of them. I do not want to use the word “relationship”, Fiona Horlick said.
“That’s the spin the respondent wants to put on it… Person 3 certainly came to understand that [Sidhu’s] conduct, she regarded it as predatory, she questioned whether she was being exploited, potentially being groomed, she came to believe she was being groomed… Just because someone reaches a certain age does not mean they cannot be groomed in certain circumstances.’
Horlick said it was ‘clearly obvious’ how vulnerable Person 3 was, ‘a fact that would have been known to Mr Sidhu because she told him’.
Defending Sidhu, Alisdair Williamson KC emphasized that his client wasn’t aggressive and hadn’t misused his senior position. He pointed to Sidhu’s positive interactions with hundreds of other professionals throughout his career.
Regarding Person 2, the defense portrayed the hotel room interaction as “jocular” and “light-hearted,” suggesting later messages showed a consensual relationship. With Person 3, Williamson argued the relationship was willing and consensual, though she later reconsidered its nature.
Sidhu participated in hearings remotely and maintained his denial of all charges. While not testifying personally, his defense stressed these were private matters outside professional regulation.
A leading lawyer who was born to immigrant parents and who rose to his current position as a charismatic and talented barrister he was also Chair of the Criminal Bar Association 2021-22.
A number of charges had previously been discharged. The original charge sheet, as reported by law blog Legal Cheek can be seen here.
The tribunal’s decision is expected next month, marking a significant moment for professional conduct standards in the law profession.
