UK judge renews contempt proceedings against Palestine Action lawyer

UK judge renews contempt proceedings against Palestine Action lawyer Submitted by Katherine Hearst on Tue, 06/23/2026 - 09:59 Though his first attempt was found to be unlawful, Justice Johnson has referred Rajiv Menon KC for a second time, in a move thought to be unprecedented in English legal history Demonstration against the government's decision to ban Palestine Action as a terror organisation outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, UK, 15 June 2026 (Reuters) Off A leading human rights barrister who represented Palestine Action defendants in the UK is facing renewed contempt of court proceedings after a judge referred allegations against him for a second time. Rajiv Menon KC was accused of breaching the judge’s directions in a closing speech he delivered in January at the conclusion of the first trial of six Palestine Action defendants accused of causing criminal damage to weapons at an Israeli army factory outside Bristol.  The defendants were subsequently cleared of charges of aggravated burglary. They were then retried, with four of them convicted of criminal damage in May. The presiding judge, Justice Johnson, alleges that Menon breached his directions, in particular by reminding the jury of their right to acquit on conscience - something that he had barred the defence from alluding to. In May, the Court of Appeal found that Johnson had unlawfully initiated proceedings against Menon by referring the case to the High Court. A panel of three judges concluded that Johnson should have either dealt with the matter himself at the time, or referred it to the attorney general. The court left the matter with Johnson, outlining three options for continuing the proceedings: to refer it to the attorney general or to the Bar Standards board, or to take no further action. Johnson rejected these options following a hearing on Friday at the Royal Courts of Justice, saying in a judgement on Monday that he would refer the matter to another High Court judge sitting in the Crown Court. Johnson said he had found “there is a case to answer in contempt” and that it is “in the public interest to institute” proceedings. He rejected the defence’s arguments that it is now too late to institute contempt proceedings against Menon. 'I absolutely didn’t cross any line, any line whatsoever' - Barrister Rajiv Menon KC quoted by his lawyer  “It would not be in the public interest to take no further action or merely refer the matter to Mr Menon’s professional regulator, or merely refer the matter to the attorney general,” Johnson said. He stressed that he had not found if Menon had acted in contempt of court, nor that he had decided to institute proceedings against him, adding that this is for the presiding judge to determine. The proceedings against Menon are thought to be unprecedented in English legal history. Adrian Waterman KC, representing Menon, told the court on Friday that the barrister had not “knowingly” breached the court’s orders. He said that transcripts of the hearing show that Menon was “astonished” at the allegation. Quoting Menon’s words at the time, Waterman said: “I absolutely didn’t cross any line, any line whatsoever,” adding that he “didn’t know how many times” he instructed the jury to follow the judge’s directions. Waterman argued that no judge could find Menon in contempt unless they found his account to be dishonest and that there is no possibility of a judge reaching that finding. Prosecutor Tom Little KC said that Menon’s speech amounted to a “clear, deliberate and sustained breach” of the court’s orders, and to a contempt of court. ‘Something which tens of thousands of barristers have done’ During the Palestine Action trial at Woolwich Crown Court, Johnson had directed lawyers that their closing speeches could not invite the jury to disregard the court's ruling or law, and barred them from reminding the jury of its right to acquit on conscience - known as the principle of “jury equity”.  In his closing remarks, Menon, who has 30 years of experience and who represented defendant Charlotte Head in both trials, read out an inscription on a plaque at the Old Bailey commemorating Bushell’s Case of 1670, which first “established the right of juries to give their verdicts according to their convictions”. Palestine Action: Judge refuses recusing self from sentence hearing amid bias claims Read More » Menon told jurors that the defendants had been “restricted” when giving evidence about their knowledge of Israeli arms company Elbit Systems' role in Israel's war on Gaza, and that it would be “ridiculous” for jurors to ignore that wider context and its impact on the defendants. He also told the jury that the judge could not direct them to convict. Justice Johnson said that the effect of Menon's speech "was to invite the jury to disregard my directions that they should put views of the Middle East and the war in Gaza, and emotion, to one side", and referred him to the administrative court.  Menon said at the time that he had “never used the phrase jury equity, and never said anything about acquitting according to conscience”. “I had to explain [to the jury] that the facts are solely for them. I kept saying it over and over again, do not disregard directions,” he said. “I did something which thousands, if not tens of thousands of barristers had done before me.” 'Deep anxiety' Waterman argued on Friday that advocates should be afforded a “wide latitude” when addressing the court on behalf of their clients. “Counsel has a difficult and important role in the administration of justice,” he told the court, emphasising that this necessitates the use of restraint. 'The unprecedented [proceedings against Menon] undermine and diminish our system of criminal justice' - Garden Court Chambers He noted that Menon had “lengthy discussions taking place over hours” with other defence counsel and senior practitioners when preparing his speech, and that, when delivering it, he did not explicitly refer to the term “jury equity” nor to the jury being permitted to acquit on conscience. Menon said at the time that he was “worried about the jury not understanding that the withdrawal of the defence does not amount to a direction to convict”. He was referring to Johnson's ruling that removed the legal defence of "lawful excuse" from the defendants, meaning that the activists could not argue that the damage they caused was legally justified to prevent greater crimes being committed by Israel’s military in Gaza. Waterman said this explanation was “clearly an honest, immediate explanation of the process he had gone through”, and that his surprise was clearly not “feigned”. He added that pursuing contempt charges against Menon will have an “unbelievable” chilling effect across the bar. Palestine Action ban: Court ruling risks ‘slide into authoritarianism’, warn rights advocates Read More » He further warned that sanctioning an advocate for what they say in court could be an interference with their rights to freedom of expression, enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. Waterman also warned of the “grave” consequences for Menon himself, who he said had already been caused "deep anxiety" by this process. The court heard of Menon's experience of "deep personal tragedies" during this period, and that he had been unable to be with his father at his death due to the proceedings against him. Garden Court Chambers, where Menon is a senior silk, said that the "unprecedented" proceedings "undermine and diminish our system of criminal justice". "The administration of justice depends upon an independent bar willing and able to act in the best interests of their clients, fearlessly and with integrity," it said in a statement. Palestine Action London News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0