Mr Navjot ‘Jo’ Sidhu KC -v- The Bar Standards Board (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001641

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

ON APPEAL FROM THE BAR TRIBUNAL AND ADJUDICATION SERVICE

20 January 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury

Between:

MR NAVJOT “JO” SIDHU KC

-v-

THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD

Order

BEFORE the Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury

IN THE MATTER OF the Appellant’s appeal pursuant to Section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013

UPON the application by the Respondent for an order for anonymity in respect of the persons (Persons 1 to 3) who complained of sexual misconduct by the Appellant and who are not parties to the proceedings

AND UPON the Appellant inviting the court to:
a) Direct that details of the Appellant’s health (including mental health) and references to his family life should not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings; and to
b) Make orders pursuant to CPR r.5.4C to limit documentary evidence accessible by non-parties.

UPON Person 2 and Person 3 having been granted anonymity and special measures by BTAS during the proceedings from which the appeal is brought

UPON Person 1 having been granted anonymity at the public hearing before BTAS and having given evidence under the pseudonym of “Person 1” without special measures to conceal her physical appearance from public view

UPON Person 1 subsequent to the BTAS hearing having appeared in a news broadcast which showed her name and physical appearance as a person who had complained of sexual misconduct by the Appellant

UPON the details of the information contained in Person 1’s statements, including details of her education, background, family and health not having been disclosed in public during the tribunal, and Person 1 wishing this information to remain private, confidential and out of the public domain.

AND UPON consideration of the Article 8 rights of the Appellant and Persons 1,2 and 3 to respect for private and family life, and the Article 10 right of freedom of expression

AND UPON it appearing necessary that the non-disclosure of the identity of Persons 2 and 3 is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and there is no sufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure.

AND UPON it appearing necessary that limitation on the publication of information regarding the Appellant’s health (including mental health) and private and family life is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of the Appellant and his family and that there is no sufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure.

AND PURSUANT to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981; and CPR rules 5.4C and 5.4D and 39.2(4)

WHEREAS for the purposes of this order ‘Publication’ includes any speech, writing, broadcast, or other communication in whatever form (including internet and social media), which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. Pursuant to section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of Persons 2 and 3 or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of Person 2 or 3 in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  2. With effect from 2 December 2025 and until further order there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings or other publication:
    a. the name or address, picture, or other information likely to lead to the identification of any of the persons anonymised as Person 2 and Person 3 by the Disciplinary Tribunal.
    b. any address, or other information about Person 1’s private or family life not within the Tribunal’s decision or transcripts of public proceedings.
    c. details concerning the Appellant’s private and family life, specifically his health, mental health or associated therapy, his childhood or upbringing, matters relating to his marriage and matters relating to the private and family life of his wife and daughters;
  3. In any judgment or report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation thereto:
    a. Persons 1, 2 and 3 will remain anonymised as before the Disciplinary Tribunal.
    b. Any other details which, on their own or together with other information publicly available, may lead to the identification of Person 2 or 3 (including any names of other immediate family members or their addresses) shall be redacted before publication;
    c. details concerning the Appellant’s private and family life, specifically health, mental health and associated therapy) his childhood and upbringing, matters relating to his marriage, and matters relating to the private and family life of his wife and daughters shall be redacted before publication.
  4. Pursuant to CPR r.5.4C and 5.4D and/pr the inherent jurisdiction of the court:
    a. A person who is not a party to the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised and/or redacted in accordance with orders 1-3 above.
    b. If a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies (pursuant to CPR r.5.4C(1B) or (2)) for permission to inspect or obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ notice to the Appellant’s solicitor and the Respondent’s solicitor;
    c. Any application by a non-party for access to other Court records or other documents concerning this appeal should be referred to the judge hearing the appeal for consideration of similar limitations on:
    i. information tending towards the identification of Persons 1, 2 or 3; and
    ii. Information as to the Appellant’s private and family life, specifically health, mental health and associated therapy, his childhood and upbringing, matters relating to his marriage, and matters relating to the private and family life of his wife and daughters.
  5. The Court’s CE-file system shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on [date] and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order”.
  6. In accordance with the recent decision of Fordham J, in R (Metropolitan Police Commissioner) v Police Misconduct Panel, Mark Neale [2025] EWHC 1462 (Admin) the advocates shall bring redacted versions of their skeletons to the hearing.
  7. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge this Order, provided that any such application is made on 7 days’ notice to the Appellant’s solicitor.
  8. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk to the Judicial Office.
  9. The costs of obtaining this order be costs in the case