Palestine Action defence barrister wins UK contempt of court challenge
The article centers the perspective of Palestine Action and their legal defense, framing the contempt charge against Menon as 'unprecedented' and emphasizing his 'appeal win' prominently. Language choices like 'barred them from reminding the jury of its right to acquit' and the heavy focus on jury equity principles create sympathy for the defendant. The judge's concerns about Menon inviting jurors to disregard directions are presented relatively briefly and without substantive counter-framing, while Menon's closing argument content is given extensive favorable treatment.
Primary voices: barrister or legal professional, solicitor or legal representative, state or recognized government, media outlet, civil society or activist organization
- This article does not address the specific content or evidence of the criminal damage charges or the reasoning behind the jury's initial acquittal and subsequent conviction
- This article does not include a substantive statement from the prosecution, the trial judge, or the attorney general's office on the legal merits of the contempt referral
- This article does not explain the broader judicial concerns about jury equity instructions beyond Justice Johnson's brief characterization
Framing may shift if the attorney general intervenes or if the trial judge refers the matter back, potentially introducing competing legal interpretations of contempt and jury direction authority.
Activist-sourcedDissenting framingCharged language
Rajiv Menon KC faced unprecedented charges for allegedly defying the judge's directions during the trial of six Palestine Action activists
Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice, central London, demonsrrate in support of "Defend Our Juries" and their campaign against the ban on Palestine Action on 26 November 2025 (AFP)
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”.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
In his closing remarks, Menon, who has 30 years of expeerience 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”.
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’s lawyers launched an appeal on the grounds that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to handle the case against him without an intervention from the attorney general.
On Monday, the Court of Appeal agreed with Menon’s team, finding that Justice Johnson wrongly initiated proceedings and should have either dealt with the issue himself at the time or referred the matter to the attorney general.
Menon’s solicitor, Jenny Wiltshire, from Hickman & Rose, said that Menon “is delighted that the Court of Appeal has found in his favour”, adding that he “hopes that this is now an end to the matter”.
The case is referred back to the trial judge. It will be halted unless he refers it to the attorney general, Lord Hermer.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first.
Sign in to leave a comment.