Prosecution of Palestine Action barrister has left lawyers ‘uncertain and scared' Submitted by Katherine Hearst on Thu, 07/23/2026 - 10:17 Rajiv Menon KC was referred for contempt of court charges over a closing speech at conclusion of Palestine Action trial Protesters wave a Palestinian flag outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London on 15 June 2026 (AFP) Off Senior lawyers and legal figures in the UK have warned that the prosecution for contempt of court of a leading human rights barrister who represented Palestine Action activists is having a chilling effect across the bar. Rajiv Menon KC is alleged to have breached the judge’s directions in a closing speech he delivered in January at the conclusion of the first trial of six Palestine Action defendants accused of causing criminal damage to weapons at an Israeli arms factory outside Bristol. Menon is alleged, in particular, to have breached the judge's directions by reminding the jury of their right to acquit on conscience – something the trial judge, Mr Justice Johnson, had barred the defence from alluding to.
On Wednesday evening, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, told an online meeting of senior legal figures in support of Menon that his case is already impacting the work of lawyers, who she said are “changing their speeches or being told to change them”. “And that really can’t be ignored, because people at the criminal bar have become uncertain and scared of what they can and can’t say, scared that somehow they might be, at the end of a trial where they have faithfully represented their client themselves, facing a charge of criminal contempt,” Karmy-Jones said. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); In May, the Court of Appeal found that Mr Justice Johnson had unlawfully initiated proceedings against Menon by referring the case to the High Court.
A panel of three judges concluded that Johnson should have either dealt with the matter himself at the time, or referred it to the attorney general (AG). But following a hearing last month, Johnson rejected these options and referred the matter again to another High Court judge. He said he had found “there is a case to answer in contempt” and that it is “in the public interest to institute” proceedings.
That High Court judge, Justice Nicklin, found in late June "sufficient material to justify the institution of…
Summary from source