Menon: Categorically denies breaching orders
The KC facing contempt of court proceedings for his closing speech has broken his silence to warn about the “chilling effect” his case is having on criminal defence lawyers.
Rajiv Menon said he wanted to “have a voice” in the controversy swirling around his case, “as opposed to simply waiting for my opportunity in court months from now to say what I need to say”.
He was interviewed on Democracy Now!, an independent daily news hour broadcast on various TV and radio stations in the US and via YouTube.
Presenter Amy Goodman said Mr Menon, who practises from Garden Court Chambers, was appearing against his lawyer’s wishes.
In January 2026, Mr Justice Johnson held that Mr Menon’s closing speech on behalf of a Palestine Action activist disobeyed his directions not to mention certain things, while expressly making no finding about whether that conduct was deliberate.
He referred Mr Menon to the High Court for possible contempt but the Court of Appeal set the order aside after finding that a Crown Court judge could not make such a reference directly to the High Court.
However, the appeal court remitted the matter back to Johnson J to consider what other action he might take, having said 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.
The judge decided that there was a case to answer in contempt and it went before Mr Justice Nicklin, sitting in the Crown Court, who issued a summons for Mr Menon to appear before Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb late last month.
However, shortly before, that was stayed after the Court of Appeal decided the High Court should first decide the KC’s challenge to its jurisdiction to hold the hearing.
Mr Menon said this would probably take place in October or November.
He said: “I’ve decided to speak out because for the last few months a number of senior judges in this country have decided to make the most serious allegations against me in public, publishing those allegations on the Judicial Office website…
“I’m the first lawyer, as far as I’m aware, as far as my lawyers are aware, ever to be prosecuted for contempt of court in British legal history.
“I just feel that it’s important that I have a voice in this and that I at least address some of the matters in general terms that I’m accused of, as opposed to simply waiting for my opportunity in court months from now to say what I need to say.”
Mr Menon said he “categorically” denied deliberately or inadvertently breaching any judicial order.
He explained that one of the charges his client, Charlotte Head, faced was for criminal damage. There was no dispute that she had participated with others in damaging property belonging to the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems and the trial judge “had withdrawn her only available defence of lawful excuse to that charge”.
He continued: “But, of course, she’s innocent until proven guilty. And ultimately, the facts are for the jury, not for the judge. The jury are the sole judges of the facts.”
Mr Menon said he had recounted the famous case from 1670 of Penn and Mead, known as Bushel’s Case, where a jury had refused to convict even though the judge had directed them to.
“I told the jury about that case, as hundreds, if not thousands, of other lawyers have done before me. And I told the jury about a plaque at the Old Bailey, probably the most famous courtroom in the world, where that case is celebrated – again, something that’s been done by countless lawyers before me.
“And what I’ve been accused of is that by doing that, I was informing the jury about their right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience and was inviting them to do so. And that is an allegation I categorically deny. What you call jury nullification in the United States is called jury equity here.
“But I categorically deny – I need to make this absolutely clear – that I either informed the jury of the existence of that principle, that fundamental principle, or invited them to invoke it.”
Mr Menon said there was “no doubt” that the proceedings were “having a chilling effect on criminal defence lawyers and the worries that they undoubtedly have these days, particularly in protest cases, about what they can and cannot say”.
He continued: “That’s obviously because of the unique, extraordinary and unprecedented action being taken against me. I mean, I think that’s irrefutable. I mean, there’s so much evidence about it.
“Literally hundreds of people have contacted me, lawyers and others, to talk about that chilling effect. That clearly is extremely worrying. It’s been described by some as a descent into authoritarianism.”
Mr Menon’s solicitor is Jenny Wiltshire, head of serious and general crime at London firm Hickman & Rose.
In a statement issued after the interview, she explained that the fact that the challenges to the proceedings so far have been largely procedural and jurisdictional “means that there has been no forum in which to set out Rajiv’s strong legal and factual challenges to the allegations of contempt themselves”.
She continued: “As the proceedings are currently ongoing, it is not appropriate to set out the details of his challenges now.
“What can be said at this stage is that Rajiv’s defence is not limited to the issue of jury equity but includes the nature and extent of the trial judge’s orders themselves which are alleged to have been in force and breached. If the time ever comes when the details of Rajiv’s challenges need to be presented, this will be done in full.
“Nevertheless, it is important that all of those showing any interest in this matter know that Rajiv strenuously denies that the speech he gave breached any order of the trial judge, was intended to do so, or was in any way in contempt of court.
“This is separate from the profoundly concerning decision by several senior judges to pursue this matter as a potential contempt of court and the procedure which has now been adopted on two separate occasions, which must be having a chilling effect upon other barristers and advocates.”
Leave a Comment