Former prison bar chief Jo Sidhu KC will not be a monster, he’s not a predator and no hostile inference ought to be drawn from his choice to not give proof, his authorized workforce have informed a tribunal contemplating skilled misconduct prices introduced towards him by the Bar Requirements Board.
Sidhu initially confronted 15 prices referring to allegations by three girls who had been both regulation college students or present process mini pupillage on the time. He denies the fees. Yesterday, he succeeded in getting among the prices thrown out, together with a cost in relation to Particular person 1.
The Bar Tribunals & Adjudications Service heard closing submissions at present, first from Fiona Horlick KC, for the BSB.
Horlick mentioned Particular person 2 was ‘remarkably trustworthy and frank’ in her written and oral proof, which made her account ‘significantly compelling’.
Horlick informed the tribunal that ‘right here we’re coping with conduct of a really senior silk in relation to a mini pupillage’ and to have ‘induced reluctant consent’ on the primary night time of Particular person 2’s mini pupillage breached Core Obligation 5 of the BSB Handbook. ‘What he did afterwards was so complicated to her,’ Horlick added. ‘I exploit the phrase “gaslighting”. A girl in her scenario made to really feel she had virtually imagined it.’
The tribunal was reminded that Particular person 3’s proof was not challenged.
Horlick mentioned: ‘Her witness assertion was an especially frank recollection of what occurred between the 2 of them. I don’t wish to use the phrase “relationship”. That’s the spin the respondent desires to placed on it… Particular person 3 definitely got here to know that [Sidhu’s] conduct, she regarded it as predatory, she questioned whether or not she was being exploited, probably being groomed, she got here to consider she was being groomed… Simply because somebody reaches a sure age doesn’t imply they can’t be groomed in sure circumstances.’
Horlick mentioned it was ‘clearly apparent’ how weak Particular person 3 was, ‘a reality that might have been recognized to Mr Sidhu as a result of she informed him’.
Alisdair Williamson KC, for Sidhu, started his closing submissions by telling the tribunal that Sidhu was not a monster and he was not a predator. The tribunal had accounts from two girls ‘in a slender area of time after they initially got here into contact with him and continued to have some type of relationship’.
‘It’s a relationship,’ Williamson mentioned. ‘A relationship these days in trendy life doesn’t exist solely in assembly nose to nose. It exists on-line. His relationship with Particular person 3 was a digital relationship. These two examples don’t offset the various a whole lot of people that got here into contact with him who didn’t expertise something apart from helpful interplay with him.’
On Sidhu’s choice to not give proof, ‘little doubt you’ll say there aren’t any ideas that might commit us to attract an hostile inference on this case, [and] we must always not accomplish that for medical causes?,’ tribunal panel chair Her Honour Choose Janet Waddicor mentioned. ‘Sure’, replied Williamson.
The tribunal will now deliberate and is anticipated to succeed in a call subsequent month.
Fiona Horlick KC and Harini Iyengar appeared for the Bar Requirements Board. Alisdair Williamson KC and Colin Witcher appeared for Navjot Sidhu KC.