Solicitors have joined forces with barristers to speak out over the contempt proceedings faced by silk Rajiv Menon – describing the court’s decision as ‘chilling’ and an attack on free speech.
The contempt proceedings brought against Rajiv Menon KC arose from submissions made during his closing speech on behalf of Palestine Action activists. However, the issues it raises should concern every advocate, every defendant and ultimately raises again questions about the class nature of the judice system and the judiciary.
Rajiv Menon KC is one of the country’s most respected criminal barristers. Over many years he has represented defendants in some of the most significant criminal trials, public inquiries and human rights cases. Indeed, I work closely with him on the Undercover Policing Inquiry and he has been nothing but determined and professional in his dealings with colleagues and indeed the Chair of the Inquiry.
It is therefore alarming that he has become the subject of contempt proceedings arising from submissions made during his closing speech to a jury in the prosecution of Palestine Action activists. The principle at stake extends far beyond the facts of the case.
The prosecution of a barrister for submissions made while defending a client represents an extraordinary constitutional development. For generations, the adversarial legal system in Britain has depended upon counsel being able to present their client’s case robustly, challenge the prosecution, test legal boundaries where appropriate, and invite juries to consider the evidence according to law. That independence is not a privilege enjoyed by lawyers for their own benefit, it is an essential safeguard for every individual who stands accused before the courts.
If barristers begin to fear that arguments advanced on behalf of clients may expose them personally to contempt proceedings or criminal sanction, the consequences reach far beyond one courtroom. Inevitably, criminal law practitioners may become more cautious. Difficult arguments may remain unspoken. Novel submissions may never be advanced. Those defending politically controversial defendants, or those whose cases attract intense public scrutiny, may feel pressure to water down their advocacy.
This climate, which many junior barristers are already feeling, does not strengthen the administration of justice. It would weaken it. For that reason, the proceedings against Rajiv Menon have attracted concern well beyond the legal community. They raise wider questions about the relationship between judges and lawyers, about the extent to which a lawyer may advance difficult submissions on behalf of clients, and about the proper limits of judicial control over advocacy in criminal trials.
Those questions have become even more significant because of the procedural history of the case.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal concluded that the original contempt proceedings brought against Rajiv Menon could not stand because the procedure adopted had been legally defective. Many assumed that this would mark the end of an unfortunate episode and would reaffirm the long-established protection afforded to independent advocacy.
Instead, fresh proceedings were instigated by the trial judge, who then heard the case in the High Court to answer the question, was there a case to answer? He answered his own question – yes there was!
However, the substantive contempt hearing, listed to commence on 28 July 2026, (further to the judge answering his own question) has now itself been stayed by the Court of Appeal again! The Court of Appeal has not determined whether Rajiv Menon’s conduct amounted to contempt, nor has it dismissed the allegations. Instead, it has accepted that there is an arguable challenge to the lower court’s jurisdiction. So before the court can decide whether contempt has been committed, the Court of Appeal must first decide whether the proceedings themselves are lawful and can proceed.
So, in a nutshell the present position is that the renewed contempt proceedings remain live, but the it has been paused. The Court of Appeal has stayed the proceedings so that Rajiv Menon KC’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction can be determined first. There has therefore been no finding of contempt, yet.
That procedural uncertainty is revealing. Within a matter of months, the courts have repeatedly been required to consider how, and indeed whether, contempt proceedings against a barrister can properly be brought in circumstances such as these. The case has not only exposed unresolved constitutional questions about the boundaries between fearless advocacy and judicial authority, but it also reflects a wider balance of forces.
On one side is the apparent determination of the state to pursue and sanction an advocate for submissions made while defending his client in a case involving Palestine Action activists. On the other is the collective power of those within and beyond the legal profession who have organised, campaigned and spoken out against these proceedings. That opposition has ensured that the attempt to proceed against Rajiv Menon has not gone unchallenged or unnoticed.
The proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC cannot be viewed in isolation. They have arisen during a period in which the British state has increasingly sought to restrict and deter expressions of solidarity with Palestine. Campaign organisations have faced injunctions, protesters have been arrested and prosecuted, public meetings have been challenged, and legal organisations and individual lawyers have themselves become the subject of political attacks. The proceedings against one of the country’s leading criminal advocates therefore sit within a much broader political landscape.
From a socialist perspective, this should not come as a surprise. The courts do not operate in a political vacuum. Judges are appointed from within the legal establishment and inevitably reflect many of those assumptions and values. Although judicial independence remains an essential constitutional safeguard, the courts are nonetheless institutions of the state. At moments of heightened political conflict, the tension between preserving established authority and protecting fundamental democratic freedoms can become particularly acute.
For now, the case remains unresolved. The contempt allegations have not been determined. The substantive hearing has been stayed while the Court of Appeal decides whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the renewed proceedings instituted following the referral by the trial judge.
Whatever the legal outcome, the constitutional questions raised by these proceedings will endure. They concern not simply the position of one distinguished King’s Counsel but whether advocates can continue to represent unpopular clients and contentious causes fearlessly, independently and without intimidation.
Public support has also grown, including a ‘Save Britain’s Juries’ petition, which has attracted almost 40,000 signatures see here.
Source: Counterfire