Make money doing the work you believe in
Filton 6 barrister Rajiv Menon KC cleared of unprecedented contempt of court charges relating to his closing speech in January trial
In the increasingly toxic, politicized legal landscape in the UK, politicians and judges are colluding to subvert justice to serve Israel.
The primary focus, at present, of this disturbing trend is the case of the Filton 6, Palestine Action activists charged in connection with damage caused in August 2024 to a factory in Bristol run by Elbit Systems, Israel’s biggest arms manufacturer.
I wrote about alarming developments in the case of the Filton 6 yesterday, after reporting restrictions were lifted which had stopped UK journalists from discussing how the judge, Mr. Justice Johnson, had prevented the jury from hearing about his plans to graft terrorism charges onto their sentencing, which is due to take place on June 12, after the jury convicted four of the six defendants of criminal damage last week.
The judge had also sought to prevent the defendants from exercising “jury equity”, the right of defendants to tell jurors why they took the actions that they did, which would have enabled them to be acquitted on the basis that the criminal damage they undertook was an act of conscience, designed to prevent the use of Elbit’s weapons in Israel’s ongoing genocide of the Palestinian civilians of the Gaza Strip.
In a related example of politicized judicial overreach, it also recently emerged — again, after reporting restrictions were lifted — that Mr. Justice Johnson had also sought the prosecution of Rajiv Menon KC, one of the Filton 6’s barristers, for contempt of court, based on the closing speech he delivered to the jury at the first trial of the Filton 6 in January, when the jury dismissed all the charges or were unable to reach a verdict, prompting the government to launch a retrial.
Mr. Justice Johnson referred Mr. Menon to the high court to be prosecuted for contempt of court, because, as the Guardian described it, “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.”
Mr. Menon’s closing speech, which the political commentator and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray described as “one of the greatest legal speeches — including historical speeches — I have ever read”, is available on Real Media’s website here, and I urge you to read it: realmedia.press/the-fil…
When the reporting restrictions were lifted, Garden Court Chambers issued a press release in which, after noting that he is “a highly respected silk at Garden Court Chambers and a former head of chambers”, they expressed their astonishment and indignation at Mr. Justice Johnson’s referral, stating, “Not only is this the first time in English legal history that a barrister is being prosecuted for contempt in respect of a closing speech at a criminal trial, but the procedure being used to prosecute Rajiv is wholly novel and without historical precedent.”
They added, “It is important to note that the prosecution of Rajiv for contempt has wider constitutional implications. We are extremely concerned about the chilling effect on the Bar of the state seeking to criminalise barristers for their representation of their clients. Such action is bound to undermine the confidence of the public that those charged, particularly in political and controversial cases, can receive the committed representation that they would expect to be provided.”
Read the statement here: gardencourtchambers.co.…
On Tuesday, the court of appeal dismissed Mr. Justice Johnson’s efforts to refer Mr. Menon for contempt of court. The Guardian, which noted that he had “previously worked on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the inquests of victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the Grenfell Tower inquiry”, quoted his solicitor, Jenny Wiltshire, from Hickman & Rose, who 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 added that 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”, adding, “This unprecedented attempt to criminalise lawyers for doing their job and representing their clients fearlessly should never be repeated.”
See the Guardian’s report below.
