Equity

Excellent news from Haroon Siddique:

A leading human rights barrister has won an appeal against his referral for contempt of court over his closing speech during a trial of Palestine Action activists.

Rajiv Menon KC was accused of breaching the judge’s directions in the trial of six people for a 2024 direct action protest at an arms factory of the Israeli subsidiary Elbit Systems UK in Filton, near Bristol.

The proceedings against Menon – who previously worked on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the inquests of victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the Grenfell Tower inquiry – were believed to be the first brought against a barrister in respect of a jury speech in living memory, possibly ever. On Tuesday, the court of appeal allowed the barrister’s challenge to them.

Menon’s solicitor, Jenny Wiltshire, from Hickman & Rose, said: “Rajiv is delighted that the court of appeal has found in his favour and decided that the Filton trial judge did not have the power to refer him directly to the high court to be prosecuted for contempt of court and that the high court did not have the power to accept the reference in the absence of an application by the attorney general in the public interest.”

She said he was grateful to his lawyers and others who supported him during a difficult time and “hopes that this is now the end of the matter. This unprecedented attempt to criminalise lawyers for doing their job and representing their clients fearlessly should never be repeated”.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Johnson, referred Menon because he considered that the barrister had contravened his ruling in which he forbade lawyers from inviting the jury to disregard the court’s rulings of law or to apply the principle of jury equity – the right of a jury to acquit on the basis of conscience regardless of the judge’s directions – or to inform the jury of it.

None of the defendants were convicted of any offence but they were retried and four were convicted last week.

The high court had directed that a summons for contempt be drawn up and served on Menon after a referral from Johnson. The court of appeal said Johnson should reconsider the matter in the light of its ruling.

Defend Our Juries said the fact that contempt proceedings were ever brought against Menon “should deeply concern everyone who cares about the rule of law”.

And from Joshua Carroll:

A prominent barrister who represented a Palestine Action activist has won his appeal against contempt of court proceedings, which began after he allegedly defied a judge’s orders by telling a jury they could acquit based on their conscience.

The attempt by Mr Justice Johnson to penalise Rajiv Menon KC for comments he made in his closing speech is believed to be unprecedented in British history.

Johnson had previously told Menon that he was barred from mentioning the principle of jury equity, under which a jury can acquit someone on the basis that their actions were moral – even if they believe the defendant broke the law.

Four activists were found guilty of criminal damage last week after they took part in a 2024 break-in at a facility near Bristol owned by Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems. Despite being found guilty of criminal damage, they are set to be sentenced under terrorism law, something that was kept secret from the jury.

The contempt of court proceedings stemmed from Menon’s closing comments at a previous trial, in which the activists were acquitted, prompting prosecutors to pursue a retrial.

At the earlier trial, Menon recited an inscription from a plaque at the Old Bailey that highlights a case from 1670 that “established the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions”.

The court of appeal on Tuesday ruled that Johnson had no jurisdiction to refer Menon directly to the high court to be prosecuted for contempt, and that the high court had no jurisdiction to consider the allegation against Menon without an application by the attorney general.

A spokesperson for campaign group Defend Our Juries said: “For over 350 years, the right of a jury to follow their conscience has been a cornerstone of British justice, and the last safeguard ordinary people have against the abuse of state power.

“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. Today the court of appeal has ruled Judge Johnson followed an unlawful process, in directly referring his complaint to the high court, while bypassing the attorney general.”

And from Katherine Hearst:

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”.

In his closing remarks, Menon, who has 30 years of experience 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.