A barrister who made improper and inaccurate submissions during his closing speech in the Crown Court has been suspended for his behaviour. Rajiv Chopra, who was defending a Romanian man on trial for engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child, referred to one of the prosecution witnesses wearing “quite thick” glasses when arriving at court, in an attempt to make the jury think the eyewitness had defective vision.
The tribunal said this was an attempt to make the jury think the eyewitness had defective vision and thus could not have seen what he described. They found that this was a point which Mr Chopra could not properly make to the jury, it being unsupported by evidence and speculative.
He then told the jury that his client had answered questions in his police interview despite his solicitor’s advice to the contrary, when in fact he did not know what advice had been given. When referring to the consequences of a conviction, Mr Chopra told the jury that his client would be deported. The tribunal said this assertion was untrue.
Deportation would depend upon sentence and the view taken by the Home Office. The tribunal found that Mr Chopra believed what he was saying to be true, but simply did not address his mind to the issue at hand. At the end of the speech, the judge sent the jury out as both she and prosecution counsel believed some of the comments to be improper.
Suspension and Continuing Professional Development
Mr Chopra acknowledged at the time that he should not have said them, describing them as “a slip of the tongue”. The judge considered aborting the trial but decided she could repair the damage done by way of further directions to the jury. The trial continued and the client was cleared.
The judge then complained to the Bar Standards Board. The tribunal found that the clearly inappropriate remarks made by Mr Chopra to the jury arose out of his incompetence rather than anything more. As a result, they cleared him of lacking integrity – inadvertent transgression does not have the flavour of dishonesty or sharp practice that is associated with lack of integrity – or being reckless.
Read Also: Kerala court rejects marriage vow as valid consent defense
The tribunal added that whilst the Bar Standards Board has not proved the elements of knowledge or recklessness on the part of Mr Chopra, they have proved behaviour of an incompetent nature. Mr Chopra was suspended for four months and would not be able to return to practice before providing the Bar Standards Board with proof that he has completed 45 hours of continuing professional development.
Tribunal Findings
The tribunal said its findings raised a large question mark over Mr Chopra’s competence and professionalism as a barrister. Testimonials indicated he worked hard on behalf of his clients. However, they are of the view that Mr Chopra needs to have a greater understanding of where his duty to his client ends and his duty to the court begins.
In deciding on sanction, it was discovered by chance that in 2023 Mr Chopra received a formal rebuke from the Solicitors Regulation Authority for sending an offensive email. This did not sit comfortably with the evidence that Mr Chopra had given on oath before the tribunal when he told them that he had not been the subject of a complaint to the Bar Standards Board before or since. Whilst factually accurate, this created a false impression.
The tribunal did not award the Bar Standards Board its costs for the main hearing because the regulator did not provide a schedule of costs 24 hours before the hearing, as required by the rules.
Requirements for Return to Practice
For Mr Chopra to return to practice, he must complete 45 hours of continuing professional development, of which at least 20% must include personal face-to-face attendance, at least three hours must be training in professional ethics at the Bar, and at least 30 hours must be specific to criminal practice and include a course on the law of evidence.
Mr Chopra’s suspension is a result of his behaviour.