Monday Message 09.06.25
Navjot (Jo) Sidhu KC:
On the 19th March 2025, the Bar Standards Board disbarred our former Chair (2021-2022) in respect of three charges of professional misconduct related to inappropriate sexual behaviour towards a female student undertaking a mini-pupillage which occurred on or around the 26th November 2018. Both the finding that he had acted in a manner likely to diminish the trust and confidence that the public places in our profession and the sanction that was imposed for the misconduct are subject of an appeal.
Our focus remains on the three women who made the complaints of professional misconduct that the BSB dealt with. It is plain that the BSB accepted the evidence of all three women as being truthful and accurate. The determination was that Jo Sidhu KC was not acting in a professional capacity, but in a personal capacity when interacting with the other complainants. We cannot publicly comment on the case, the findings, the time that the process took, or the levels of support offered by the BSB whilst the case remains subject to an appeal. We will have much to say when the appeal is concluded.
We understand that the review conducted by Harriet Harman into bullying and harassment for the Bar Council deals with the Jo Sidhu case and concludes that his “predatory conduct” was an “open secret” at the Bar. It was most certainly not an open secret to the CBA and when a matter was raised with Tana Adkin KC, our Vice-Chair, and then Chair, she immediately reported the issue in accordance with our code of conduct.
It is concerning that the press obtained chapters of the review before they were provided to the profession, but we appreciate that the chapters were no more than a draft. We await the review with great interest.
The latest UN Women’s UK study found that 97% of all young women had been subject to street harassment. A Young Women’s Trust Poll found that 23% of females aged 16-30 had been sexually harassed at work but that only 8% reported the incidents. We need, as a society, to stop asking women to change or regulate their behaviour and instead include men as part of the solution because the vast majority of men are equally appalled by this kind of behaviour. We all need to challenge and report misconduct. If anyone reading this message has been affected by this type of behaviour please do report the conduct to Spot.
The CBA National Survey 2025 has demonstrated to us that being at the criminal Bar can come at the cost of experiencing bullying and harassment at Chambers or at Court from a colleague. The survey demonstrated that almost twice as many of our women suffer from this conduct compared to our men (60% f 32% m). There are further, worrying, statistics, that such behaviour is all too often targeted at our Black (79%), Asian (55%) and Mixed heritage (71%) criminal Barristers. Some 54% of our practitioners with a disability have also suffered, together with 45% of those not privately educated. The rates for those privately educated (40%), our white practitioners (39.5%) are also far too high. There was no evidence that things are getting better, or that the levels have reduced for the current Junior Bar. Regrettably, these figures mirror the extent of workplace bullying across all professions. We must be an active ally for change.
The main work stressors, according to the survey, include the increase in the administrative work that we are now asked to undertake that used to be done by those who instruct us (77%), the state of court buildings (63%), listing (61%) work-related travel (47%) and judicial behaviour (42%). The behaviour of colleagues was reported as a main work-stressor by 15%. Of those who replied, 43% had personally experienced poor conduct from colleagues.
Despite these worrying figures, 92% of those who responded felt a sense of collegiality at the criminal Bar, 77% felt supported, and 87% felt able to call out racism, sexism or bullying if they witnessed it.
The reasons that barristers want to leave the criminal Bar are the comparatively poor remuneration, the unsustainable working hours and the impact that the stresses and strains of the role have on their health and family life. Once the Harman Review is published, we will consider the recommendations. We will work with the Bar Council and the BSB to be a voice for change.
Remuneration and the Spending Review:
Since September 2024, we have been repeatedly asking the Government when they will implement the recommendations of the CLAAB report which was published on the 14th November 2024. Since November 2024, two fundamental recommendations of the report have not been met. The report recommended substantial, immediate additional funding to meet the aims of the Bellamy Review. It recommended an immediate uplift in RASSO fees. Seven months have passed.
In the last nine months the CBA has worked tirelessly with the MOJ and LAA to produce evidence -based analysis of the hours required to prepare cases for trial so that the MOJ can provide the required data to the Treasury. We have had many constructive meetings with the CPS to urge them to ensure that those who prosecute serious criminal cases are paid broadly the same as those who defend them. We meet fortnightly with the MOJ, quarterly with the CLAAB and frequently with the CPS.
The remuneration committee of the CBA headed by Richard Christie KC and the remuneration committee of the Bar Council, headed by Adrian Vincent, have worked closely together and we were able to produce a joint document for the Treasury Spending Review with four key aims, signed by the Chairs of the Bar Council and the CBA. The document can be read here.
Our gratitude to the remuneration committees and the Bar Council for the many hours of work that they have undertaken on our behalf cannot be overstated.
All is now on hold for the outcome of the Leveson Review.
The Leveson Review:
The CBA were invited to make representations to the Review and our response was drafted by Francis FitzGibbon KC, Jeremy Dein KC and James Gray, our Treasurer. We made it plain within this document that there were practical alternatives to an additional court which would significantly reduce the backlog with much lower cost. The response can be read here.
It is impossible and impractical to take a position on this review unless and until its detailed recommendations are published. We still await sight of the data upon which any of its conclusions will be based and, bearing in mind that the report must be imminent, we expect that data to arrive soon. The recommendations will be just that and we do not know which of the recommendations will be implemented by the Government, whether the implementation will be regional or national and whether there will be a pilot scheme. We understand that any implementation is likely to take a year.
We have commissioned a CBA National Survey to be immediately ready for when the Leveson Review is published so that we are able to gauge your responses quickly. The questions will seek your views about which recommended changes you will be able and/or willing to undertake. The questions that we ask will include such matters as attendance at the mid-tier court, the undertaking of trials in the mid-tier court and, if the recommendations include trials without a jury, whether you would be willing to undertake such trials in the mid-tier or in the crown court. Once the results of this analytical survey are known, they will be published and decisions will be made as to next steps.
Plainly, for the CBA to properly advocate our position, the response rate to the survey must be significant. If you care about the future of our profession, retention of the junior Bar and the right to jury trial, then we urge you to respond.
The Resident Judge’s Conference, 6th June 2025:
In an effort to do all that we can, collectively, to improve working relations between the criminal Bar and the judiciary, we have been invited to a series of meetings to consider how things can change. We were invited by the Senior Presiding Judge, Lord Justice Nicholas Green, to the Resident Judges’ conference at the University of Warwick this week and six members of the criminal Bar spoke there about their experiences of the judiciary, both positive and negative, and what the stresses and strains which we face in practice are.
The panel included three Resident Judges and was chaired by Lady Justice Philippa Whipple. We are extremely grateful to Matthew Harman, Chloe Ashley, Clare Ashcroft, Owen Edwards KC, Nneka Akudolu KC, and Holly Gilberry for attending the conference on our collective behalf and to HHJ Michael Simon, HHJ Nicholas Dean KC and HHJ Rosa Dean for taking part on the panel.
We are also grateful to all of the Resident Judges for listening with care to our concerns and for their suggestions for progress.
Lord Justice William Davis:
We are deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Lord Justice William Davis on the morning of the 7th June 2025. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, loved ones, and many friends. May he rest in peace.
Bill was called to the Bar in 1975 by Inner Temple, became a Recorder in 1995 and took Silk in 1998. He practised from 7 Fountain Court in Birmingham and then from St. Philip’s Chambers. He was Head of St Philip’s from 2004-2008 and left due to becoming a Circuit Judge that year. In 2009 he became the Recorder of Birmingham. Having begun to sit as a Deputy High Court Judge, he was quickly appointed to the Queen’s Bench Division on the 1st May 2014, became Presider of the Northern Circuit between 2016-2019 and was elevated to the Court of Appeal on 1st October 2021. Between 2014 and 2022 he was the Judicial Lead for Youth Justice in England and Wales.
For many of us who became Recorders during the period in which Bill was a member of the Judiciary, he welcomed us to the Bench with a concise, but unforgettable address. He reminded us all that we were to be respectful to the King’s justice, but we were not mice at the seat of the throne, but lions who must fearlessly and independently play our part in upholding the rule of law.
Having been a judicial member of the Sentencing Council between 2012 and 2015, he became Chair from the 1st August 2022. His recent letter to the Lord Chancellor in relation to the revised Imposition guideline demonstrates excellence of written advocacy and a clear example that he has always been respectful but has upheld the rule of law, regardless of pressure or clamour. At the end of the letter, he said this: “In criminal proceedings where the offender is the subject of prosecution by the state, the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender. If sentencing guidelines of whatever kind were to be dictated in any way by Ministers of the Crown, this principle would be breached.”
At times when the Judiciary are increasingly being threatened and demonised for upholding the law, his example is one which we should all remember.
Timothy Dutton CBE KC:
The criminal Bar mourns the passing of Tim, who was widely recognised as an outstanding advocate and a true friend to the Bar. Tim was called to the Bar in 1979 at Middle Temple and took Silk in 1998. He was head of Fountain Court Chambers between 2008 and 2013. Alongside a busy practice, Tim served as Leader of the South Eastern Circuit, Chair of the Bar Council and Chair of the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers.
In 1994, Tim founded the South Eastern Circuit Advanced International Advocacy Course at Keble College. He was awarded the CBE in 2015 as a recognition of his contribution to the profession and to the law. Despite his many professional commitments, Tim was always courteous and fair to his juniors and opponents at the Bar. A diagnosis of motor neurone disease some 11 years ago did not cause Tim to alter his practice which astounded his doctors, but not those who knew him. His motto was “Treat every day as if it were the last.”
He will be sorely missed by his beloved wife, Sappho and daughter, Pia. He will also be mourned by his friends and colleagues across the profession. Our thoughts and prayers are with all who are affected by his passing. May he rest in peace.
HMP Highpoint:
We are grateful to Claire Davies KC, Leader of the South Eastern Circuit, for the following message. HMP Highpoint has not had the capability to offer legal visits via CVP. Steps have now been put in place to try and facilitate legal visits in this way, however, there needs to be a trial of the processes in relation to booking and ensuring the system works. The SEC are asking for solicitors or counsel who may benefit from this new facility to get it touch and be part of the trial.
Please do not contact the prison but the SEC for details to be passed on to the relevant parties.
‘PRE’ national rollout – new pre-recorded evidence technology from HMCTS
HMCTS has developed its own in-house technology to help support the delivery of Section 28 of the Youth and Criminal Justice Act 1999 pre-recorded evidence special measure.
The new technology, known as ‘PRE’, will be rolled out in England and Wales to every Crown Court and the High Court sitting in the Crown Court on 16 June 2025. This follows the successful pilot project which ran in 9 early adopter courts across England and Wales from July 2023. This new technology replaces the legacy Vodafone Section 28 IT system.
PRE is a more flexible system that allows bookings to be made at any time and for users to view recordings the same day as they are made, speeding up the process for all users. The system can also be paused during the recording process, cutting down the time required for editing footage and supporting vulnerable witnesses to give their best evidence.
Legal professionals will need to register for a PRE portal account to access recordings.
Make sure you’re prepared for the new technology by registering for a PRE Account.
Yours,
Mary Prior KC
Chair, The Criminal Bar Association