Past disciplinary findings

1. Mr Navjot Sidhu KC, a barrister, acted in a way likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or the profession, in that, on or around 26 November 2018, whilst in a position of trust, he invited Person 2 to stay overnight in his hotel room and in his hotel bed, during a mini-pupillage or work shadowing experience, such conduct being of a sexual nature, and which invitation he knew or ought to have known was inappropriate and/or unwanted, in circumstances:
(a) He told Person 2 that due to confidentiality they needed the privacy of his hotel bedroom to work on the case;
(b) He made the invitation to stay when they were alone together in the bedroom;
(c) He made the invitation to her late in the evening;
(d) He was aware that Person 2 was staying away from her home city in order to attend a criminal trial in which he was counsel for one of the parties;
(e) He was in a position of professional seniority to Person 2;
(f) He was senior to Person 2 in age;
(g) There was a power imbalance between him and Person 2 in his favour;
(h) He had originally initiated contact with Person 2 via the professional social networking website LinkedIn by sending her an unsolicited message;
(i) He was aware that Person 2:
(i) was in her 20’s;
(ii) was working as a paralegal;
(iii) was contemplating and/or had contemplated coming to the Bar;
(iv) had sought his professional and career advice;
(v) had sought his assistance with her CV;
(vi) had sought his assistance with an application for a mini-pupillage;
(j) He had told and/or encouraged Person 2 to apply for a mini-pupillage
(k) He had provided Person 2 with assistance with her application for a mini-pupillage;
(l) He had made communications and arrangements with Person 2 which, wholly or in part, had given Person 2 reasonable cause to believe that Mr Sidhu KC was in charge of her mini-pupillage;
(m) His professional responsibility was engaged towards Person 2 as a result of the work shadowing arrangement;
(n) He had arranged for Person 2 to attend court and shadow him in a criminal trial;
(o) Despite Person 2 stating that she wished to and/or should leave the hotel room, he:
(i) encouraged Person 2 to stay in the hotel room;
(ii) changed out of his day clothes into pyjamas or bed clothes;
(iii) placed pillows on the bed and said, “These will act as a barricade,” or words to that effect;
(iv) insisted that Person 2 should sleep on the bed with him rather than on the sofa in the hotel room;
(v) He knew or ought to have known that his invitation to Person 2 to stay overnight in the hotel room and in his hotel bed was inappropriate and/or unwanted.

2. Mr Navjot Sidhu KC, a barrister, acted in a way likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or the profession, in that, on or around 26 November 2018, whilst in a position of trust, he behaved as follows towards Person 2, who was undertaking a mini-pupillage or work shadowing experience, despite Person 2 stating that she wished to and/or should leave the hotel room, he
(a) changed out of his day clothes into pyjamas or bed clothes;
(b) placed pillows on the bed and said, “These will act as a barricade,” or words to that effect;
(c) insisted that Person 2 should sleep on the bed with him rather than on the sofa in the hotel room which conduct being of a sexual nature and which he knew or ought to have known was inappropriate and/or unwanted in circumstances where:
(d) He had told Person 2 that due to confidentiality they needed the privacy of his hotel bedroom to work on the case;
(e) He initiated sexual contact with Person 2 when they were alone together in the bedroom;
(f) He knew or ought to have known that Person 2 did not wish to engage in sexual activity with him;
(g) He knew or ought to have known that sexual activity was inappropriate between them;
(h) He initiated sexual contact with Person 2 late in the evening;
(i) He was aware that Person 2 was staying away from her home city in order to attend a criminal trial in which he was counsel for one of the parties;
(j) He was in a position of professional seniority to Person 2;
(k) He was senior to Person 2 in age;
(l) There was a power imbalance between him and Person 2 in his favour;
(m) He had originally initiated contact with Person 2 via the professional social networking website LinkedIn by sending her an unsolicited message;
(n) He was aware that Person 2:
(i) was in her 20’s
(ii) was working as a paralegal;
(iii) was contemplating and/or had contemplated coming to the Bar;
(iv) had sought his professional and career advice;
(v) had sought his assistance with her CV;
(vi) had sought his assistance with an application for a mini-pupillage;
(o) He had told and/or encouraged Person 2 to apply for a mini-pupillage;
(p) He had provided Person 2 with assistance with her application for a mini-pupillage;
(q) He had made communications and arrangements with Person 2 which, wholly or in part, had given Person 2 reasonable cause to believe that Mr Sidhu KC was in charge of her mini-pupillage;
(r) His professional responsibility was engaged towards Person 2 as a result of the work shadowing arrangement;
(s) He had arranged for Person 2 to attend court and shadow him in a criminal trial.


3. Mr Navjot Sidhu KC, a barrister and BSB regulated person, acted in a way likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or the profession, in that, on or around 26 November 2018, whilst in a position of trust, he initiated sexual contact with Person 2, during a mini-pupillage or work shadowing experience, which initiation of sexual contact he knew or ought to have known was inappropriate and/or unwanted, in circumstances where:
(a) He told Person 2 that due to confidentiality they needed the privacy of his hotel bedroom to work on the case;
(b) He initiated sexual contact with Person 2 when they were alone together in the bedroom;
(c) He knew or ought to have known that Person 2 did not want him to initiate sexual contact with her;
(d) He knew or ought to have known that Person 2 did not wish to engage in sexual activity with him;
(e) He knew or ought to have known that sexual activity was inappropriate between them;
(f) He initiated sexual contact with Person 2 late in the evening;
(g) He was aware that Person 2 was staying away from her home city in order to attend a criminal trial in which he was counsel for one of the parties;
(h) He was in a position of professional seniority to Person 2;
(i) He was senior to Person 2 in age;
(j) There was a power imbalance between him and Person 2 in his favour;
(k) He had originally initiated contact with Person 2 via the professional social networking website LinkedIn by sending her an unsolicited message;
(l) He was aware that Person 2:
(i) was in her 20’s;
(ii) was working as a paralegal;
(iii) was contemplating and/or had contemplated coming to the Bar;
(iv) had sought his professional and career advice;
(v) had sought his assistance with her CV;
(vi) had sought his assistance with an application for a mini-pupillage;
(m) He had told and/or encouraged Person 2 to apply for a mini-pupillage;
(n) He had provided Person 2 with assistance with her application for a mini-pupillage;
(o) He had made communications and arrangements with Person 2 which, wholly or in part, had given Person 2 reasonable cause to believe that Mr Sidhu KC was in charge of her mini-pupillage;
(p) His professional responsibility was engaged towards Person 2 as a result of the work shadowing arrangement;
(q) He had arranged for Person 2 to attend court and shadow him in a criminal trial;
(r) Despite Person 2 stating that she wished to and/or should leave the hotel room, he had:
(i) encouraged Person 2 to stay in the hotel room;
(ii) changed out of his day clothes into pyjamas or bed clothes;
(iii) placed pillows on the bed and said, “These will act as a barricade,” or words to that effect;
(iv) insisted that Person 2 should sleep on the bed with him rather than on the sofa in the hotel room.