Victory for Palestine Action Lawyer Accused of Contempt of Court

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.”