Senior barrister and former Legal Bar Affiliation chair Jo Sidhu’s disciplinary tribunal ought to go forward attributable to ‘profound public curiosity’, a listening to has been informed.
Following the dismissal of a privateness and anonymity utility yesterday, the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service’s five-person panel heard a keep utility, additionally introduced by Sidhu.
Alisdair Williamson KC, for Sidhu, stated the keep was requested on medical grounds, which had been heard in personal, and attributable to questions over disclosure. He stated: ‘It’s extra a problem of whether or not it’s attainable to resolve these points within the timeframe obtainable to us. For the explanations I touched on earlier, that could be of grave concern.’
Williamson informed the tribunal that the stories towards Sidhu had been made on the three and 4 November 2022 about occasions that occurred six to eight years beforehand.
Williamson stated: ‘It beggars perception these stories may have been made in such shut proximity to one another with out some type of coordination. That could be a reputable query. It’s a matter for correct enquiry as as to if there was any type of coordination by others towards the respondent as a result of that timing raises that query.
‘I’m not utilizing the phrase collusion as a result of at that second I would not have a foundation on which I may say that, and that’s the objective of disclosure.’
Sidhu, who appeared remotely on digital camera for the listening to, is alleged to have behaved inappropriately with three ladies. He faces 15 costs: 14 concern a breach of core responsibility 5, which pertains to belief and confidence which the general public locations on barristers and within the occupation, and one issues a breach of core responsibility 3, which states barristers should act with honesty and integrity.
Fiona Horlick KC, for the Bar Requirements Board, stated not one of the three complainants knew one another or had met one another ‘and that also stays the case’.
She added: ‘[There] is just no proof of collusion between these complainants. They weren’t recognized by one another, they’ve separate causes for coming ahead once they did. For Particular person 1 there was a purpose why at that individual time that she felt she needed to [come forward]. As for Particular person 2, there was a dinner at which there was some dialogue with different individuals.
‘The background truth is there was discuss on the bar for fairly an extended time period, after which she was ultimately contacted by one of many individuals on the dinner and requested if she would chat to the Legal Bar Affiliation about what she had reported on the dinner.
‘Can I be completely clear right here, none of those three complainants know one another or have met one another and that also stays the case.’
‘The allegations towards Mr Sidhu, the best way we put it, are exceptionally severe. There’s a profound public curiosity in there being a listening to and there not being a keep. It might be that I needn’t go into this matter any additional than to flag as a headline however the significance of those issues being ventilated can’t be underestimated. There are very actual ramifications not just for the regulatory course of but in addition for the elemental significance of allegations of this kind towards a member of the bar being heard and being adjudicated upon.
‘Thirdly [I] stress the pursuits of those three complainants. They’ve come ahead, they’ve been, you may have seen their statements…considerably affected they are saying of their statements by Mr Sidhu’s alleged behaviour. While this matter will not be resolved they’re in a state of stress as nicely and it’s of their greatest curiosity that this matter is resolved now inside this listening to window.’
The tribunal dismissed Sidhu’s utility for a keep discovering that ‘enough safeguards are in place for the respondent [that] it’s completely attainable for there to be a good trial’.
The chair of the panel, Her Honour Janet Waddicor, stated the panel was not glad that any of the disclosure points referred to within the utility positioned Sidhu’s authorized staff ‘able the place they’re unable to take care of his case pretty’ or ‘the place they’ve inadequate time’.
She added that the panel had been ‘unanimous’ of their view that enough safeguards had been in place for a good trial.
She stated: ‘Equity in a trial will not be merely equity to 1 facet, it’s equity to either side and Miss Horlick identified the complainants on this case have had the prospect of this trial hanging over them. They don’t seem to be charged with something however that may be a issue the courtroom can keep in mind.
‘The applying for a keep is refused, it’s attainable to have a good trial.’
Sidhu denies all costs towards him.