Menon: Court of Appeal to consider case
Contempt of court proceedings against the former head of Garden Court Chambers (GCC) for a closing speech that allegedly breached the judge’s directions could have a “chilling effect on the Bar”, the set has argued.
Reporting restrictions were lifted last week on the proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC and GCC said that “not only is this the first time in English legal history that a barrister is being prosecuted for contempt in respect of a closing speech at a criminal trial, but the procedure being used to prosecute Rajiv is wholly novel and without historical precedent”.
But other barristers have argued that lawyers who did not like a judge’s order should appeal, rather than defy, it.
The alleged contempt concerns a closing speech that Mr Menon delivered to a jury at Woolwich Crown Court in January 2026 on behalf of his client, Charlotte Head, one of six Palestine Action activists accused of causing criminal damage at a factory in Filton, Bristol belonging to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer.
While none were convicted at that trial, four of them – including Ms Head – were convicted of criminal damage at a retrial last week, with one also found guilty of grievous bodily harm.
It was reported in The Guardian [1] that towards the end of the second trial, all but one of the defendants dispensed with their barristers and chose to give their closing speeches themselves.
The article explained: “Head, who burst into tears as her guilty verdict was read out, told the court that she had done so because ‘after some decisions made by the court, I no longer feel like they [my lawyers] are permitted to represent me in a way that does us all justice’.” She re-engaged Mr Menon after being found guilty to argue for bail.
The contempt proceedings relate to Mr Menon allegedly disregarding the judge’s instruction in the first trial that counsel could not argue the defendants had a lawful excuse because of the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza, or inform the jury that they could acquit on the basis of conscience.
The judge was quoted as saying that the effect of Mr 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”.
In a statement, GCC said: “We have supported Rajiv throughout the proceedings, including significant numbers of our members attending court hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice.
“Rajiv is independently represented by solicitors and leading counsel who have made powerful arguments about the jurisdictional legality and procedural propriety of the contempt proceedings being brought against Rajiv. Judgment is currently awaited from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)… Whatever the outcome, Garden Court Chambers will continue to support Rajiv.”
The statement continued the prosecution has wider constitutional implications: “We are extremely concerned about the chilling effect on the Bar of the state seeking to criminalise barristers for their representation of their clients.
“Such action is bound to undermine the confidence of the public that those charged, particularly in political and controversial cases, can receive the committed representation that they would expect to be provided.”
Responding to the statement on LinkedIn, Simon Myerson KC wrote: “No one has to disobey a judge. Counsel argue the case. We abide an adverse result, subject to appeal. If the judge says we can’t put something we appeal, or argue it.
“Why? Because this job isn’t about us. It isn’t about a cause. The job is about the law applying to everyone, whether we feel they deserve a result or not…
“If you won’t observe the standards enshrined in our professional rules then, however important you are, you run the risk of being reported for contempt or breach of professional standards.”
Other barristers agreed that the answer was to appeal, while one warned that “it is no answer to say (as some have) ‘but the judge was wrong’ or ‘well it just should have been before the jury’. Because what will you say, on the next occasion, when you agree with the judge?
“For example, what if you’re a defendant, and the judge has directed that your criminal conviction from years ago has no relevance to the current charges and so cannot be brought up? Or what if you’re the complainant in a rape trial, and the judge has ruled that your past sexual history is irrelevant and cannot be brought up?
“The system simply does not work if the rule is ‘counsel must respect court orders, but only if they/their client agree with them.”