Top KC disbarred for sexual misconduct loses appeal

_{'Appeal dismissssssed'}

Former Chair of the Criminal Bar Jo Sidhu, who was disbarred after he was found to have behaved inappropriately when he persuaded a young woman to stay overnight in his hotel room during her mini pupillage, has lost his appeal against his expulsion from the profession.

The charges related to events in 2018 when Sidhu persuaded the mini-pupil, “Person 2”, to sleep on his bed by placing cushions down the middle as a “barricade”.

Sidhu’s legal team sought to persuade Mr Justice Choudhury that the “sexual kissing and touching” which followed was consensual, arguing in the High Court that although Sidhu’s hotel bedroom door was locked, “she could have turned the lock to open the door had she wanted to leave”.

But Justice Choudhury ruled that although the Bar Standards Board tribunal “ultimately concluded that it could not be sure” that the sexual contact was unwanted, “there was evidence to suggest that it was unwanted”, and the tribunal had been right not to treat it as consensual.

Sidhu’s counsel asked the judge to consider that Person 2 had viewed Sidhu "as a potential sexual partner” when she exchanged texts with him over the following two years, including messaging him, “Of course darling. I miss you”, before she raised a complaint.

“I can see no error in the Tribunal taking into account that delayed reaction, which is not untypical in cases of this sort”, ruled the judge.

“Person 2 was shocked and confused by what had happened on the night, but over time came to realise how improperly the Appellant had conducted himself”, he said.

The former KC argued that the tribunal had wrongly concluded his conduct was particularly serious because of his seniority, since at the time of the incident he held “no leadership or representative positions at the Bar”.

Justice Choudhury rejected the point. Referring to Sidhu’s position as an established Silk and his previous senior roles in the Bar Council, the judge said he was “a role model for more junior and aspiring members of the profession” and agreed that Person 2 was “awed by his status”.

“On any reasonable, objective view, the Appellant was, even in November 2018, a very senior and prominent Barrister; that he became even more so upon being elected to the Chair of the CBA and leading the Bar strike some years later does not diminish his many impressive achievements up to that point”, said the judge.

Justice Choudhury was unmoved by Sidhu’s position that “overcoming a difficult childhood, losing his father in 2018”, his mental health issues and “the significant contribution made to the profession” ought to have been treated as “exceptional” personal mitigation.

The judge said their relevance in assessing the seriousness of his misconduct was “severely limited, if indeed they are relevant at all”, and concluded that the tribunal’s decision to boot him from the profession fell “well within the bounds of what it could reasonably and properly decide”.

A spokesperson for the BSB told RollOnFriday, “We are thankful to the witnesses who had the courage to come forward and without which we could not have taken enforcement action in this case".

"We welcome this judgement, which upholds the Independent Tribunal’s decision that there is no place for such conduct at the Bar. We would encourage others experiencing similar behaviour in the profession to come forward and report this to us.”

Don't risk being hauled before a ROF Tribunal, if you work in a law firm take the survey:

The RollOnFriday Newsletter

Comments

Sidhu is a disgrace

Good.
An embarrassment to the Legal Profession and the mitigation put forward was truly laughable and idiotic.
I would think that Choudhury J was having to bite hard on to his handkerchief to stop tears of laughter rolling down his face and his shoulders shaking with genuine guffaws.
Both Jo Sidhu KC and his appeal legal team have made themselves laughing stocks all round.

Ohdearhowsadnevermind

No doubt Sidhu will feel incredibly foolish when he realises he could have simply not invited an intern into his hotel room bed.

@ Anonymous 16 January 26 09:27

He thinks he did nothing wrong. That is why he appealed. So, I don't think he will feel foolish. The cognitive dissonance will have kicked in for him, he will just be confused.

Question Man, activate!

Message just in from Lord Lester: "I like Jo Sidhu!"

Maybe the BSB should learn how to spell judgment as well.

Oh sod it, I'll do it for him:

Can we be certain that this was the real Mr Justice Choudhury and that he was not an imposter giving a false judgement while the genuine Choudhury J was locked up in a cupboard in some kind of restrictive leather harness arrangement?

Was it consensual? Yes. Was there any true allegation that it wasn't consensual from the individual? No.

Was there any threat therefore implied or express that her career or future position would be compromised if she did not have sexual relations? No. Is there an allegation to the same? No.

A relationship formed, and a bitter ex girlfriend sought to damage her old flame however she could. Was the relationship and his behaviour inappropriate? Yes, of course. But it was consensual.

And this is where the regulator acts ultra vires by injecting their own politics into the profession and people's personal lives. The UK is a far left unpleasant country like that.

You can cheat on your spouse however many times you like and divorces are still no fault. The criminal and civil law decriminalises and unregulates personal relationships so long as they abide by consent in relation to sex between the parties concerned, not in relation to any personal agreements re exclusivity.

So then if years later you try to do semantic laundering to change the definition of consent to including regret or feeling lied to re sexual intercourse i.e. buyer's remorse, you're trying to reverse engineer the law to fit in with your own malicious payback goal. And the regulators and the left wing administrations are craven enough to go along with it, all the while seeking to arrest people for unpleasant tweets. It's the same ideology, which much of RoF's readership, but not the rest of the world, shares.

@Anonymous 16 January 26 13:23

You say "Was it consensual? Yes. Was there any true allegation that it wasn't consensual from the individual? No." Were you there?

The judge said "ultimately concluded that it could not be sure” that the sexual contact was unwanted, “there was evidence to suggest that it was unwanted”, and the tribunal had been right not to treat it as consensual."

Your argument is wrong because it conflates criminal-law consent with professional-regulatory standards. While the absence of force, threats, or coercion may defeat a criminal allegation, it does not prevent a regulator from finding misconduct where a professional enters a consensual sexual relationship that creates a power imbalance, conflict of interest, or risk to public confidence in the profession. Regulatory bodies are not required to prove lack of consent or victimisation; they are entitled to assess whether the professional exercised proper judgment and complied with duties of integrity and restraint inherent in holding regulated authority. Accordingly, the fact that a relationship was consensual, and even welcomed at the time, does not immunise it from regulatory sanction, nor does it require any later redefinition of consent to “regret” or “buyer’s remorse.”

@Anonymous 16 January 26 14:40 - correct.

@Anonymous 16 January 26 13:23

I would sit this one out if I was you. She was in her early twenties and he was knocking on for a freedom bus pass.

The guy has made himself so toxic now, there is no way that he could credibly be allowed back in.

Having read the judgment, it is clear he had to go. Anon 14:40 is right.

Anonymous 16 January 26 14:40

Vote up!

Vote down!

@Anonymous 16 January 26 13:23

....

AI score

96%

Human Score

You just plugged the original comment into chatgpt to get that response and parroted verbatim because you have neither the intelligence nor the writing ability to argue with the comment in question despite disagreeing with it. I can see the moron behind the comment. I too plugged it into grok and chatgpt and came up with a near verbatim response to yours, which changes if you say please don't do user validation.

Anon 16 January 26 14:40 - this is clearly AI

14:40 is right, despite the whiff of AI to it.

14:40 is AI, the AI isn't operating on innocent until proven guilty principles unless you tell that to take it into account because it's relying heavily on the wording in the article re no finding on lack of consent i.e. you can't make accusations of rape or non consent if you're found not guilty of rape, which is based on insufficent evidence.

It's definitely NOT right.

HI suppose he could go into the academia profession - teach law to undergraduates etc.

Not a decision that's likely to stand the test of time well. Procedurally unfair too. CoA perhaps?

Its really simple he should have just kept his pecker in his pant then there woukd have been no problem. Mitigate that!

@11.17 - activate what?

The right decision and obviously one that's likely to stand the test of time well. Procedurally fair, too. No prospect of the CoA.

Personally I feel that the whole idea of a simple consent can be bought into question in a situation such as this. One may consent to have sexual activity done unto them however this may be due to an idea that she would lose her job had she unlocked the door and left. Which may have been true. The law seems to be a little grey in the overlap of special relations such as this and consent particularly in situations such as this. I hope the law learns a lesson from this issue and can deal with future cases easier. [email protected] seems to have the same opinion as me however they didn’t have to use chatGPT unless they were one hell of a busy lawyer.

Adam Johnson type outcome. Didn't even get to put his end in. All that for a kiss and a cuddle.

@22.27 - activate... this.

What gets me is she was told to meet him in a place miles away from her home. So, she was removed by him coercively from a place of safery. Predatory planning.

@[email protected] - is it a case of opposites attract seeing as Lord Lester was completely cleared of all wrongdoing by the BSB and he wasn't?

Is that you at 13.23, Jo?

@[email protected] - now, what are the questions you should be asking?

2 year relationship came to an end. Couldn't make a police report as no crime, couldn't file a suit, as no case; filled in a short form in 5 minutes, sent off to BSB. "My ex bf groomed me, bad man - I was an intern! Disbar him and kill him".

Either women in their 20s have the capacity to consent or they don't. Either they have the same capacity as women in their 40s or they don't. And people are saying "it's gross for an older man to court a younger woman". But men hit on women. Women who like men who hit on them put themselves in compromising situations to facilitate it. Women do not tend to hit on men in the same way. Women like power and status. Women like older men. Age gaps are very common - and it works generally one way, women go for older men. Men tend to be dominant in bed, women tend to be submissive.

Yes, these are generalities, no, this is not all men or all women. Men are taller than women too - yes, there may be some women taller than men, but saying you can't make the general statement is preposterous.

It's like some of you have to attend a Sex Ed Class 101 for 8 year olds, I wouldn't say Sex Ed Classes for 8 year olds but most of them have this knowledge already. You're these strange assexual creatures. And let's face it, that's how you've ended up in or around law in the first place reading this article and this comment.

Somehow the truly nasty one filled with rage and malice who has tried to bury this man because of completely different reasons years later is left completely untarnished in the comments.

Even Bill Clinton who did much worse - sex with an intern while he was Prez in the Oval Office i.e. the actual workplace, while married in a supposedly Christian moralistic country didn't have consequences over that specifically. Nor even using cigars to penetrate her orifices in the same workplace. He got punished for repeatedly and expressly lying about it in multiple ways in court under oath.

THAT is fair.

Why wouldn't he appeal this?

Anonymous 18 January 26 12:44

Hi Jo.

Anonymous 17 January 26 19:13 - message just in from Lord Lester - "I like Jo Sidhu because we both engaged in professionally improper sexual activity, and neither of us was cleared by the BSB."

Anonymous 18 January 26 01:17 - the only question we have is this: "When is question man getting the mental health help he very badly needs?"

Anonymous 18 January 26 12:44 - the tribunal found the sexual activity to be unwanted and the court found the tribunal were correct to treat it as non-consensual. So your analysis falls apart right at the start.

"You're these strange assexual creatures"

No place for this kind of homophobic speech in 2026.

Get 12:44 back to the DEI camps asap.

@Anonymous 18 January 26 14:02 - because he’d lose.

@17.34 - ...although she agreed to meet him

@[email protected] - no person 2, it is not.

@[email protected] - activate what?

Anonymous 19 January 26 12:22

Unfortunately Psychopathy is untreatable.

@ Anonymous 19 January 26 12:25

This is such a palpably dishonest/incompetent comment when nothing in the judgement comes close to saying that - they conclude IT WAS NOT UNWANTED. They NEVER concluded sexual activity was non-consensual or anything to what you said at all in any way:

"THE CHAIR: You had to prove – sorry the BSB had to prove that it was unwanted. We applied the criminal standard of proof we could not be sure it was unwanted. So, it was not proved that it was unwanted. MR WILLIAMSON: Exactly. And the consequence of that must be, as a matter of law, that it is not unwanted. THE CHAIR: Yes. (T/S at 12C-E)"

"THE CHAIR: It maybe we are saying the same thing. Our finding is not that the sexual activity was wanted. It was we could not be sure it was unwanted. MR WILLIAMSON: That is why I say it is not unwanted. THE CHAIR: Right, okay. (T/S at 11G to 12B) (Emphasis added)"