Menon: No jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal has set aside a Crown Court judge’s referral of a KC for contempt of court proceedings after finding the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to pursue them.
However, Rajiv Menon KC could still face contempt proceedings or a complaint to the Bar Standards Board.
We reported yesterday [1] that a row had broken out over Mr Justice Johnson’s decision to refer Mr Menon to the High Court for possible contempt after he failed to comply with court directions not to mention certain things in his closing speech on behalf of a Palestine Action activist.
While his set – Garden Court Chambers, of which he is a former head – highlighted the “chilling effect” this could have on the Bar, the Court of Appeal’s decision dealt only with whether the High Court had jurisdiction.
However, the panel – Lord Justice Bean, vice-president of the civil division), Lord Justice Dingemans, the Senior President of Tribunals, and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith – indicated that in principle that there was action a judge could take in such circumstances.
In January 2026, Johnson J held that Mr Menon’s closing speech disobeyed his directions, while expressly making no finding about whether that conduct was deliberate.
The trial concluded with the discharge of the jury following a mixture of acquittals and failures to agree on verdicts. At a hearing in February to consider retrials, prosecution counsel submitted that Mr Menon’s conduct constituted a contempt of court and a breach of the Bar Code of Conduct.
Johnson J said he had “referred the matter to a Divisional Court” and in March Lord Justice Edis issuing directions for a hearing. Mr Menon challenged this.
The Court of Appeal found that while “a superior court of record has power at common law to deal summarily with contempt in the face of the court”, and any court may refer such a case to the Attorney General, there was not a third option allowing a Crown Court judge to refer it directly to the High Court.
“This is because although the point has never been expressly decided, the overwhelming weight of authority indicates that no such direct route exists.”
A Judicial Office Advisory Note on contempt in the face of the court was also wrong to include this option, the court went on.
A judge “may refer a contempt in the face of the court to a High Court judge sitting as a judge of the Crown Court, but this did not occur in this instance”.
It added: “We accept that the distinction between a reference to the Administrative Court of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, and a fellow High Court judge sitting as a judge of the Crown Court may be technical and narrow, but the procedure adopted to deal with a person alleged to have committed a contempt in the face of the court must comply with the law.”
The court expressed sympathy with the difficulties Johnson J faced. “There was no ideal solution. No criticism could possibly be made of his decision not to attempt to take summary action during the trial.
“It would have been open to him to refer the alleged contempt to the Attorney General, or to the Bar Standards Board as an alleged breach of the code of conduct. Both processes are likely to lead to delay where there was a need to ensure that there was compliance with orders of the court, particularly in the light of the imminent retrial.
“He would have had jurisdiction to refer the alleged contempt to another High Court judge sitting as a judge of the Crown Court if a summary process was thought to be required.”
The court set aside the directions of Edis LJ and granted a declaration that the Administrative Court and/or the Divisional Court “have no jurisdiction, in the absence of an application by the Attorney General, to consider the allegation of contempt against Mr Menon”.
That left the matter back with Johnson J. He may, subject to any further points made on behalf of Mr Menon, refer the barrister to the Attorney General or the Bar Standards Board, the court said.