Rajiv Menon KC, a human rights barrister at the UK-based Garden Court Chambers specialising in human rights, civil liberties and criminal law, has been subjected to contempt of court proceedings for the contents of his closing speech while representing a Palestine Action protestor. 

The summons hearing took place on the 28th of July 2026, and the judgment is currently pending. 

No lawyer in British legal history has ever faced contempt of court charges for representing their client. Menon is a prominent human rights and criminal law barrister. Before these proceedings, he represented his client, Charlotte Head, an activist who faced criminal damage charges for participating in protests staged by proscribed advocacy group, Palestine Action. 

During Menon’s closing speech, he invited the jury to “disregard the court’s directions that they should put views of the Middle East and the war in Gaza, and emotion, to one side.” He also said Elbit Systems’s UK branch “produced 85% of the weapons used by the Israeli military,” which he claimed resulted in mass killings of Palestinian people, and that the protestors he represented had stood up for what they believed in. 

This prompted the Woolwich Crown Court (a lower court handling serious criminal cases) to refer the matter to the Divisional Court (a higher court with supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts). In the Matter of Contempt Proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Administrative Court (a specialist court within the High Court dealing with judicial reviews) lacked jurisdiction to consider the allegation of contempt of court against Menon, referring the case back to the Crown Court. 

In the trial before Mr Justice Johnson in Woolwich Crown Court, the prosecution argued that Menon had disregarded the court’s ruling and acted in breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, in contempt of court. 

Menon’s lawyers argued that the court did not have authority to instigate summary contempt proceedings because it was not urgent or imperative that the summons power should have been exercised. Specifically, Menon’s lawyers averred that this was the case because the court did not exercise a summary jurisdiction at the time the alleged acts occurred, or immediately afterwards. Finally, Menon’s legal team argued that the proceedings would be against public interest and would have a “chilling effect” on the defence Bar. 

The judge ruled that there was a case to answer in contempt because part of his speech amounted to an improper suggestion of partiality on the part of the court. Furthermore, he did not accept that the court can only find contempt if counsel had been dishonest. He also reasoned that the contempt proceedings were in the public interest.

Consequently, the Crown Court at Woolwich ordered a summons against Menon, requiring him to attend a hearing on the 28th of July 2026.

Given these unprecedented court proceedings, Menon could face up to two years in prison. Many prominent lawyers, law firms, organisations, and societies have criticized the allegations against Menon. 

In a recent webinar hosted by the Garden Court North Chambers, many prominent human rights and criminal law practitioners and members of the judiciary have voiced their support for Menon, warning of the potential consequences these proceedings may have on freedom of speech in the UK, and the rule of law generally. 

Baroness Shami Chakrabarti has expressed a similar sentiment, saying, “it’s crystal clear that the right to a fair trial has been violated. There have been many attacks on the rule of law, many of which have come from the executive [government]. But now it’s from the judiciary, which is alarming.”

Within the wider context of democracy, there is growing concern over government crackdowns on the right to protest and freedom of speech in the UK. The judiciary has never prosecuted a British lawyer for contempt of court in British legal history. These proceedings threaten democracy and the rule of law because Menon’s freedom of speech rights have been undermined. No lawyer should have to worry about their freedom of speech when defending their client. It interferes with the barristers’ role of being able to represent their client fearlessly and independently. Not being able to do so will threaten a defendant’s right to a fair trial and the rule of law in criminal courts. A jury’s independence is vital for the constitution and the right to a fair trial in the UK, which these proceedings undermine. 

The Garden Court Chambers confirmed they will continue to support Menon “through this difficult time” while the outcome remains pending.