Navjot "Jo" Sidhu KC v Bar Standards Board

An appeal from a specialist disciplinary tribunal is a review, not a rehearing. The reviewing court engages with the merits but gives appropriate respect to the tribunal’s evaluative judgment. It should interfere with sanction only for an error of principle, a decision that is wrong or clearly inappropriate, or a decision outside the range that the tribunal could properly and reasonably make.

In sexual-misconduct cases, the assessment remains fact-sensitive. A single incident may fall within the upper range where culpability and harm are significant, particularly where it involves abuse of professional position or trust, vulnerability, a marked seniority disparity and serious harm to public confidence. Failure to prove unwanted sexual activity to the criminal standard does not establish consent. Disbarment may therefore be proportionate even without a criminal conviction.

The appellant, a senior barrister and King’s Counsel, appealed under Crime and Courts Act 2013 against his disbarment by a BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal. The Tribunal had found three charges of professional misconduct proved under Core Duty 5, arising from his conduct towards a mini-pupil in a hotel room during a mini-pupillage.

The Tribunal decided by a majority of three to two that the misconduct involved significant culpability and harm and fell within the upper range under the applicable BSB sanctions guidance. The appellant did not challenge liability, but argued that the sanction was disproportionate, that mitigating factors had been undervalued, and that the Tribunal’s reasons were inadequate. The central issues were the permissible scope of review, the assessment of seriousness and consent, proportionality, and adequacy of reasons.

1. Appeal dismissed. The disbarment imposed by the Tribunal remained in place. Under section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and CPR Part 52, the appeal was by way of review. The Court adopted the principles summarised in Dean v Bar Standards Board [2025] EWHC 1860 (Admin). The review engaged the merits, but required appropriate respect for the specialist tribunal’s decision-making process.
2. The Court should interfere with an evaluative sanction decision only where there was an error of principle, the decision was wrong, clearly inappropriate, or outside the bounds of what the tribunal could properly and reasonably decide. The staged approach in the BSB Guidance was appropriate: identify the misconduct group, assess culpability and harm, determine the indicative sanction, consider aggravating and mitigating factors, apply totality, and give sufficient reasons.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to find significant culpability and significant harm. The relevant factors included the professional context, intentional conduct for sexual gratification, abuse of a position of trust and professional position, vulnerability, sexual touching, persistence during the evening, the marked disparity in seniority and experience, and harm to public confidence. A single incident may be sustained over a short period. Overlap between factors does not amount to double-counting where the factors retain distinct significance on the facts.
4. The Tribunal was not required to treat the sexual activity as consensual. Because the pre-April 2019 criminal standard applied, a finding that the Tribunal could not be sure that activity was unwanted did not mean that it had found the activity wanted or consensual. Re B [2008] UKH 35, concerning the binary treatment of facts under the civil standard of proof, did not justify the proposed inference.
5. The Tribunal had considered the appellant’s good character, contribution to the profession, personal circumstances and unlikelihood of repetition, but was entitled to attach limited weight to those matters. Sexual misconduct may justify disbarment without a criminal conviction. Given the upper-range assessment and the serious effect on public confidence, disbarment was within the permissible range and was not clearly inappropriate.
6. The reasons were adequate when the Decision was read as a whole. It identified the purposes of sanction, the relevant culpability and harm factors, the upper-range classification, the indicative sanction, and the significance of the appellant’s seniority and prominence. A specialist tribunal need not address every factor or provide elaborate drafting.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the Tribunal’s sanction was dismissed. The disbarment stood.
• BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal: after finding three charges proved, the Tribunal imposed disbarment by a majority of three to two.