Palestine Action Barrister Wins Appeal in UK Contempt Case

A leading human rights barrister has won his appeal against contempt of court proceedings leveled at him for a closing speech in the trial of anti-genocide Palestine Action activists. 

The court of appeal’s ruling Tuesday in the case of Rajiv Menon KC comes as it has also emerged that four of the defendants found guilty in a retrial can be sentenced as terrorists.

Three court of appeal judges found that the trial judge, Mr Justice Johnson, “had no jurisdiction” to refer the case against Menon for a closing argument to the High Court. 

Johnson could potentially still refer the contempt allegations to the attorney general or another High Court judge sitting in the Crown Court.

The decision was, however, seen as a victory by Menon’s lawyers and supporters who warned that the proceedings were unprecedented and had a chilling effect on the entire bar.

“Rajiv Menon KC did what every defence barrister should be free to do – in discharging his duty to his client: he told a jury the truth about their own rights.”

“The fact that contempt of court proceedings were even brought against a barrister for his closing speech — for the first time in British legal history — should deeply concern everyone who cares about the rule of law,” the group added.

Menon had been accused of violating Johnson’s orders in the first trial of six activists who broke into an Israeli-owned arms factory near Bristol in 2024 at the height of the Gaza genocide.

The judge barred the lawyers from inviting the jury to disregard the court’s ruling of law or to acquit the defendants on the basis of conscience, known as the principle of jury equity.

In his closing speech, Menon told the jury about the Bushell case, a landmark ruling from 1670 that established the independence of juries. 

The barrister read from a plaque at the Old Bailey which commemorates the jury in that case saying it “established the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions.”

The Crown Prosecution Service sought a retrial on those charges. 

Before the closing arguments in the retrial, five of the defendants dismissed their lawyers, including Menon and represented themselves, saying they no longer felt their lawyers could represent them as a result of restrictions imposed by the court.

Last week, four of the defendants were convicted of criminal damage in the retrial, with one also found guilty of grievous bodily harm without intent.  

Reporting restrictions were lifted Tuesday, allowing the media to report that a “terrorism connection” was added to their case, which the jury was not told about.

This factor means they can be sentenced as terrorists, which could increase the time they spend in custody or conditions upon release.

“This grave miscarriage of justice should be a matter of public outrage. Had the jury not been deliberately kept in the dark about this secret terrorist sentencing, the jury may not have chosen to convict.

The judge also forbade the defendants and their barristers from informing the jury of their right to acquit on the basis of conscience.”

Dania Akkad is an investigative journalist. She has won awards for her reporting on women’s rights in the Middle East, Saudi Arabian dissidents and California’s lettuce industry. She started her career covering crime and agribusiness at daily newspapers in California, and then reported from Syria as a freelance journalist before the war, including investigating the 2005 suicide bombing in Amman that killed members of her family. She served most recently as senior investigations editor at Middle East Eye.