A Birmingham rape trial was scrapped after a barrister held a meeting with teenage victim Dana Baker at his home.

Prosecutor David Jones, who was also a part-time judge, breached strict legal guidelines on witness contact by meeting with the 15-year-old girl.

The costly trial was halted after the judge heard details of the meeting and Mr Jones – a barrister with No5 Chambers in Birmingham – resigned from the Bar soon afterwards.

Karate teacher Jaspal Riat, aged 48, was jailed more than a year later for repeatedly abusing Dana.

But justice came too late for the gifted student, as she hanged herself as she awaited the second trial.

Riat, from Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, was jailed for eight years in September at Gloucester Crown Court after jurors heard how he had tied up and had sex with Dana when she was aged just 13 and 14.

He was cleared of rape but was convicted of sexual assault and seven counts of sexual activity with a child.

But Riat first went on trial for abusing Dana at Birmingham Crown Court in summer 2010.

A jury was sworn in on August 2 and prosecutor David Jones – a barrister for 40 years – opened the case on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service.

But the next day His Honour Judge Philip Parker, QC, dramatically halted the trial, which had taken months of preparation.

After asking the jury to leave the court, he revealed to the courtroom that Mr Jones had held a pre-trial meeting at his house with Dana – then aged 15 and described by the judge as a vulnerable witness.

Judge Parker said: “It is a very serious case, at its highest an allegation of rape of a young girl of 13 or 14 by a man in a position of trust.

“This morning matters have been drawn to my attention over concern about a meeting which prosecuting counsel, Mr David Jones, had with the complainant in the case.

“The long and short of it is that as a result of disclosures in respect of that meeting, the defence... wish that the jury be discharged and that some investigations take place concerning this meeting so that Mr Jones’ position is clear and so that the defence have material upon which they might consider making further applications in respect of the trial.’’

The meeting took place on July 29, 2010, at Mr Jones’ home.

Dana was present, along with her foster mother and a carer or social worker. It is understood that Mr Jones’ wife was also present at the meeting, which included food.

Yet the barrister breached his own profession’s Code of Conduct because the Crown Prosecution Service was not notified of the meeting, no police officer was in attendance and no notes were taken.

Mr Jones had said he had wanted to discuss with Dana if she would give evidence via a TV link, or live in court behind a screen.