A leading barrister is facing contempt of court proceedings after he was accused of defying a judge’s orders in the first Palestine Action criminal damage trial.
Rajiv Menon KC is accused of misleading the jury and ignoring the directions of Mr Justice Johnson when representing one of the six activists who invaded the UK site of Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems.
Details of the case can be disclosed today after four Palestine Action activists were convicted of criminal damage charges.
Menon, a leading human rights barrister who has worked on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, inquests of victims of the Hillsborough disaster, and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, faced the ire of the judge after delivering a closing speech in January for his client, Charlotte Head, during the first trial of the case.
Senior judges at the Court of Appeal are now assessing whether Mr Menon should face contempt of court proceedings.
Before the first trial over the Elbit raid, Mr Justice Johnson ruled that Head and her co-defendants, who were then charged with violent disorder, aggravated burglary, and criminal damage, could not argue they had a “lawful excuse” because of the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza.
He blocked evidence of Elbit’s supply of weapons to Israel from being presented in the trial, as well as evidence on the history of conflict in the Middle East, and the judge said the defendants could not argue they were justified in their actions that night because of Israeli genocide.
In his closing speech, Menon highlighted a plaque at the Old Bailey which sets out the “right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions”, in a move the judge said was in breach of his directions.
Johnson said Menon had “asked the jury to apply the principle of jury equity” – allegedly suggesting jurors could find the defendants not guilty by taking a decision “according to their conscience”.
The barrister also said on six occasions that the trial judge could not direct the jury to convict the defendants.
“The effect of Mr 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”, concluded the judge.
He added that Menon is also accused of misleading the jury when he pointed out that the prosecution had not challenged evidence put forward by the defendants about Elbit’s business interests and the Middle East conflict.
“I ruled that evidence as to the history of the Middle East and the role of Elbit Systems in supplying weapons to Israel was not relevant,” said the judge.
“It follows that such evidence ought not to have been elicited, and it was not open to the prosecution to challenge it.
“It was therefore wrong to suggest that the prosecution accepted that evidence, and that this evidence was critical to the jury reaching true verdicts.”
In his speech, Menon told the jury: “Remember at all times that the target of this action was a massive weapons company that has played a critical role in the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, as opposed to, for example, a company that makes fluffy toys for children.
“How can you reach true verdicts according to the evidence if you ignore the unchallenged, uncontradicted evidence you’ve heard about this dreadful company?”
At the end of the first trial, jurors acquitted the defendants on the aggravated burglary charge, but were undecided on the allegation of criminal damage.
At the retrial, Head and four of her co-defendants dispensed with the services of their barristers just before closing speeches, and delivered the addresses themselves to the jury.
“Sadly, despite how unbelievably kind and smart and wise my barristers are, after some decisions made by the court, I no longer feel like they are permitted to represent me in a way that does us all justice. So I’ve had to represent myself,” Head told the jury.
Head was convicted of criminal damage alongside Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Rajwani. Corner was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm.
Mr Justice Johnson set out the suspected grounds for contempt in a ruling on January 12, and prosecutors suggested Mr Menon should face possible sanctions.
A hearing at the Court of Appeal to consider the contempt allegation has been set for June 15.
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.