
The article centers the barrister's legal victory and human rights framing while neutrally reporting procedural facts. Word choices like 'leading human rights barrister' and framing the contempt case as 'unprecedented in English legal history' elevate the defense perspective. However, the piece maintains structural balance by acknowledging the judge's directions, the subsequent convictions, and the legal complexity without editorializing.
Primary voices: state or recognized government, academic or expert
Framing may shift if higher courts affirm or reverse this ruling, or if subsequent Palestine Action trials establish new legal precedent.
A leading human rights barrister who represented Palestine Action defendants in the UK has won an appeal against a contempt of court case.
Rajiv Menon KC was accused of breaching the judge’s directions in a closing speech he delivered at the conclusion of the first trial at Woolwich Crown Court involving 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 last week.
The proceedings against Menon are thought to be unprecedented in English legal history.
During the trial, the presiding judge, Justice Johnson, 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”.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first.
Sign in to leave a comment.