A leading barrister is waiting to discover whether he will face proceedings over an alleged contempt of court during his closing speech in a Palestine Action criminal damage trial, as his case has been sent to a new judge.
Rajiv Menon KC is accused of misleading the jury and ignoring the directions of the trial judge, Mr Justice Johnson, when representing one of the six activists who invaded the UK site of Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems at a trial in January.
The incident was sparked by Menon’s closing speech while representing Charlotte Head, a Palestine Action activist who had been involved in criminal damage at the Bristol factory.
Johnson, who oversaw the criminal trial, referred the question of whether Menon had committed any contempt of court to the High Court.
Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled the judge had wrongly sent the case directly to the High Court, rather than making a referral to the attorney general or dealing with the matter at the Crown Court, and sent the issue back to Johnson.
However, in a decision on Monday, Johnson said that Mr Menon did have a case to answer for a potential contempt and that it was in the public interest to begin proceedings.
In a 35-page judgment, he said the question of whether to institute proceedings for contempt of court will be decided by another judge.
He said: “Menon accepts that he knew of the court’s rulings, and his conduct was deliberate in the sense that he intended to say what he said.
“Even if it is necessary to show that the breach of the court’s rulings was deliberate and that Menon intended to create a real risk of impeding the administration of justice, and notwithstanding my starting position that Menon would be unlikely deliberately to disobey a court instruction, there is here a case to answer.”
Johnson also said he would not refer the issue to the attorney general.
He concluded: “I stress that nothing in this judgment decides that Menon has acted in contempt of court.
“That can only be decided if contempt proceedings have been instituted and then only if a judge finds that a contempt has been established to the criminal standard of proof.
“Nor have I decided to institute contempt proceedings.
“I have, instead, decided that the papers should be referred to a presiding judge in order to determine whether contempt proceedings should be instituted.”
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.