Rajiv Menon KC, the barrister who represented one of the Palestine Action activists recently convicted of criminal damage, has avoided a contempt of court case after clashing with the judge at the initial trial.
Menon defended Charlotte Head, one of six people tried in relation to a break-in at the Elbit Systems factory near Bristol in August 2024.
In February, Head and her co-defendants were acquitted of aggravated burglary, but the jury did not return a verdict on charges of criminal damage.
Four of those, including Head, were subsequently convicted of criminal damage at a retrial earlier this month.
But, at the initial trial, Menon was accused of defying the judge’s orders and misleading jurors.
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 Mr Justice Johnson after delivering a closing speech in January for his client.
Prior to the trial, the judge had ruled that the defendants 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.”
The case was subsequently referred to the Court of Appeal for a decision on whether to hear a case of contempt against Menon.
In a ruling on Tuesday, appeal judges blocked the case from progressing, saying that it was procedurally flawed and ruling that the contempt allegation should have either been dealt with by Johnson at the time of the trial or referred to the attorney general.
"Rajiv is delighted that the Court of Appeal has found in his favour,” said Jenny Wiltshire, whose firm represented Menon.
"He hopes that this is now the end of the matter.”
However, the appeal ruling did not rule out the case being resumed through a referral to the attorney general.
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.