The case of former Criminal Bar Association chair Jo Sidhu KC is unusual only in that ‘he was held accountable’, former MP and minister Harriet Harman has told the Gazette.
Harman’s independent review into bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the bar, published today, discusses the case of Sidhu’s disciplinary tribunal in which he was found guilty of sexual misconduct in relation to his behaviour toward a young woman during her mini-pupillage. Sidhu was cleared of the majority of misconduct charges against him, but three, in relation to ’Person 2’, were found proved. Sidhu was disbarred in March. He denied all the charges and has since lodged an appeal.
Harman’s report states: ‘The case against Jo Sidhu KC highlights some of the systemic issues facing the bar with regard to sexual misconduct’. For example, 'the tribunal did not accept that the relationship between Person 3 and Jo Sidhu KC fell within the scope of the regulator given the passage of time between her mini-pupillage and the relevant conduct’.
She adds: 'In my view, a relationship which originated in a professional context, where there is a clear power dynamic, should always be a matter for the regulator where the misconduct is likely to affect the reputation of the profession.
Read more
‘The complaint from Person 3 should have, in my view, been treated as professional misconduct. The connection between Jo Sidhu KC and Person 3 derived from her position as a law student and her desire to join the profession. Additionally, irrespective of whether there was an ongoing professional nexus, his conduct in relation to Person 3 was so serious that it justified regulatory enforcement action.’
The report accuses the Bar Standards Board of ‘significant failings’ in the hearing and that the three complainants were ‘let down by the system’.
It adds: ‘There is much work to be done to restore trust and confidence in the regulator’s ability to handle cases of this nature appropriately. Improvements must focus on: the prompt resolution of cases; the provision of support services, and improved communication and transparency.’
Speaking to the Gazette, Harman said: ‘What is unusual about the Sidhu case is that he was held accountable. His pattern of behaviour…he is not the only one at all.’ Her report says the Sidhu case had also highlighted failings in the disciplinary process including delays and a lack of transparency.
The BSB’s costs were £447,000 in the ‘extremely costly’ Sidhu case, according to the report. No order as to costs was made. Harman recommends that changes are needed to the tribunal’s power to award costs and compensation.
Other recommendations include that the scope of professional misconduct must be clarified; anonymity orders must be dealt with promptly by the Bar Tribunal & Adjudication Service; complainants and respondents involved in BSB cases should receive regular progress updates; and clear and consistent standards of behaviour relating to bullying, harassment and sexual harassment should be set across the profession.
