Navjot “Jo” Sidhu KC was found guilty of professional misconduct over an incident in 2018, during which he invited a woman in her 20s – referred to in tribunal proceedings as Person 2 – to stay overnight in his hotel bed while she was undertaking a mini-pupillage or work-shadowing placement.

According to a Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service (BTAS) panel, the incident involved contact with Person 2’s bare skin and sexual touching either over or under clothing.

The panel ruled in December last year that three charges of professional misconduct were proven against Mr Sidhu, stating that his invitation was of a sexual nature and one which he knew or should have known was inappropriate and unwanted.

At a sanctions hearing on Wednesday, BTAS panel chair Janet Waddicor delivered the majority decision that Mr Sidhu should be disbarred. The sanction applied to two of the three charges, while no separate penalty was imposed for the third, as it was deemed to overlap with one of the others.

Ms Waddicor said: “He was mentoring her, she was a mini-pupil and he was a senior barrister. There was a significant disparity in seniority and experience between the two of them.

“She was in her mid-20s and he was in his 50s. He was a senior silk and she had not had any experience of the bar before. The disparity could not have been more striking.”

Ms Waddicor added: “The victim was caused anxiety as a result of what happened and undoubtedly it had an impact on her wellbeing.”

Fiona Horlick KC, for the Bar Standards Board, said Mr Sidhu should be disbarred.

In written submissions, she stated: “It is submitted that this case, serious sexual misconduct involving a very senior and well-known male silk committed against a young, vulnerable mini-pupil where he abused his professional position and abused the trust she had in him, must be marked by the most serious of sanctions.

“Any sanction other than disbarment would send a signal that this type of misconduct could be consistent with a continued career at the bar for the barrister involved and that victims of sexual misconduct are not protected.”

Alisdair Williamson KC, for Mr Sidhu, asked the panel not to disbar him. He said the panel could not be sure that the sexual activity was “unwanted” by Person 2 and that while the incident had led to her experiencing anxiety, she did not say she was in fear or humiliated, and later added that she chose not to pursue a career at the bar “for a whole host of reasons”.

Mr Williamson said what happened was a “one-off” and that Mr Sidhu had undertaken psychotherapy and not worked for 17 months. “To have the matters that have been discussed and dealt with … dealt with to such a great and public extent is a cause of huge shame for him,” he said.

Mr Sidhu has 21 days to appeal the sanction.