_{”Oi! You’ve brought sweets, which is good, but are you with child?’}

A criminal defence solicitor has been banned from interviewing job candidates and holding disciplinary meetings after he was found to have bullied and harassed five junior female staff by clicking his fingers at them, asking whether they were pregnant, and punishing them for not bringing sweets into the office.

John Navani was a co-founder and partner at Criminal Defence Solicitors LLP when five female staff complained about his behaviour between 2016 and 2019.

The Bar Standards Board removed his firm’s authorisation to offer pupillages when the complaints first came to light, and although Navani initially maintained that the allegations were fabricated and the result of the women colluding, he altered course at the SDT hearing and argued that the offences did not meet the threshold for professional misconduct.

Person A, who was a caseworker, pupil and then a barrister at the firm, described an occasion when she was on a client call and Navani clicked his fingers, pointed at her and called out, “oi cunt” across the office, before hanging up her phone. Other complainants also said he would snap his fingers and shout “oi” to get their attention.

The tribunal did not accept Navani’s denials and found that many of Person A’s claims were proved, although it found that some of his other behaviour – such as giving her a hug outside court, and telling her he had used a prostitute – did not reach the threshold for professional misconduct.

Navani’s desire for treats was a recurring theme. Person A claimed that when she returned from holiday empty-handed, Navani convened a disciplinary meeting to discuss her failure to bring him sweets and that, after he “accused her of not being a team player”, he gave her an official warning.

Person B described returning to the office after her grandfather’s funeral and being asked by Navani, “you don’t look sad, did you bring back any treats?”, while Person D said that after she took time off to visit her ill grandparents, he exclaimed, “You’re back. Where are the treats?” 

The solicitor was also preoccupied with concerns that female staff might become pregnant. When Navani pressed Person A to disclose the reason for a hospital appointment and she told him it related to fertility issues, he remarked that “at least you won’t need to take maternity leave”, she said.

Person D recalled that when Navani interviewed her for a position at the firm, he asked whether she had a boyfriend and whether she planned to marry, telling her “I’m trying to figure out when you’re going to go on maternity leave”.

Although she found his comments inappropriate, she said she accepted the role due to the scarcity of training contracts in criminal law.

The tribunal found that Navani also threatened to not sign off her pupillage without having a good reason, and that he shouted at her for taking lunch breaks.

Person C, who joined the firm as a paralegal before being offered pupillage, described Navani showing her a CV of an applicant and saying the candidate was “very sexy” and that he was “always looking for a wife.” She also recalled him calling an intern a “massive airhead” and making derogatory remarks about universities, saying graduates “from Hatfield” (i.e., the University of Hertfordshire) were “wasters and idiots.”

The tribunal found that Navani instructed her to use make-up on her eczema which he told her looked “disgusting”, asking if it was “catchy”. When she disclosed medical issues to him, he presented her with two boxes of “Well Woman 70+” vitamins in the office, which she considered “humiliating”, and on another occasion he called her an “Apple whore” while asking for technical help. 

When Navani shouted at her in a disciplinary meeting, calling her a “liar” and a “bitch” and accusing her of gossiping, Person D said she was “left in tears and resigned immediately”.

A fifth female complainant, Person E, alleged that Navani asked her intrusive personal questions at her interview as well, including whether she had ever had therapy, whether she felt abandoned by her parents’ divorce, and whether she had a boyfriend or planned to marry.

She described an awkward visit to Navani’s flat after the firm’s Christmas party which she said she felt unable to dodge due to his power over her career. Once inside he dimmed the lights, “offered her a drink, told her to relax, and proposed meditation”, she said.

Navani also asked Person E to help put his son to bed and suggested she could become a “live-in nanny”, before asking her for a hug and a kiss when she made her getaway, she said.

Navani claimed that Person E came over to fix his phone and that, contrary to her claims, he was trying to get her to leave. The SDT said his account “lacked plausibility and did not withstand scrutiny”.

The SDT ordered Navani to be suspended for a year, but suspended the sentence for two years. It also barred him from conducting interviews and from holding disciplinary meetings for two years. The SDT said the SRA’s application for Navani to pay its £164k costs would be subject to a detailed assessment.