Key facts
- Barrister Rajiv Menon KC faces trial for contempt of court.
- The charges stem from his closing speech during a trial of Palestine Action activists.
- Legal professionals express concern that the prosecution will intimidate lawyers.
- The judge's order alleges Menon's statements risked impeding justice and suggested court partiality.
- The trial involves activists protesting at an Elbit Systems UK arms factory.
The prosecution of Rajiv Menon KC, a prominent human rights barrister, for contempt of court over his closing speech in the trial of Palestine Action activists has drawn sharp criticism from legal professionals who fear it will have a chilling effect on the profession.
Menon is scheduled to stand trial next week, accused of violating the judge's directives during the trial of six individuals involved in a 2024 protest at an Elbit Systems UK facility. Senior legal figures have voiced strong opposition to the prosecution, with Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA), stating that barristers are becoming uncertain and fearful of what they can say, potentially altering their speeches even without judicial direction.
Karmy-Jones KC suggested the prosecution might be influenced by the political nature of the trial's subject matter rather than core principles of client representation. The contempt proceedings were initiated by Mr Justice Johnson, the trial judge, and subsequently ruled to proceed by Mr Justice Nicklin after a prior referral was overturned on procedural grounds.
Other prominent legal figures, including Labour peers Shami Chakrabarti and Helena Kennedy KC, and human rights lawyer Gareth Pierce, have condemned the action. Chakrabarti described it as a "terrible, capricious mistake" and "chilling," while Kennedy KC called it "another assault upon our justice system." Families of the Hillsborough disaster victims, whom Menon represented, also conveyed their support.
The court order initiating contempt proceedings alleges that Menon deliberately breached rulings, creating a risk of impeding justice. It further claims his statements to the jury suggested the court was not impartial by referencing defendants being prevented from testifying about Elbit Systems and referring to the company as being "protected" and "wined and dined in the corridors of power."