Past disciplinary findings

On 8 November 2023, Rajiv Chopra, a barrister, whilst acting for a defendant in a criminal trial, behaved in a way likely to diminish the trust and confident that the public places in him or the profession, in that, during his closing speech, he made statements about witness evidence that were incorrect and/or misleading, resulting in the Judge sending out the jury and later giving the jury further directions to correct statements made. The statements included the following:

d) When referring to one of the prosecution witnesses, “when he came here, he was wearing glasses … and they were quite thick. They looked like prescription glasses”. Mr Chopra should not have made these submissions as he had not put these matters to the witness in cross-examination and there was therefore no, or insufficient, evidence to support them.

d) When referring to the defendant’s attendance at the police station, that “…one of the solicitors …. represented Mr [G]. Obviously, he … advised Mr [G], ‘this is the evidence’ and nine out of ten times the solicitors would say: ‘You heard the caution says you don’t have to say anything. The police is asserting you’ve done that. They have to prove the case against you. You don’t need to do anything’ as the judge already told you.” Mr Chopra should not have made these submissions as there was no evidence to support them.

d) When referring to the consequences of a conviction, that “immigration will kick in, he will be deported.” This statement was misleading because it was suggested that the defendant would automatically be deported if convicted, which was untrue,

d) When referring to alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of prosecution witnesses given in court and in their witness statements, that “if you wish, we can provide you with the witness statements to read”. This statement was untrue because it was not legally permissible to provide the witness statements to the jury.