Rajiv Menon

Rajiv Menon ( barrister)
Born	April 1964
Reminded Jurors "they have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience"  Director In office 22 April 2001 - 23 January 2005 Employer Garden Court Chambers Ltd

Rajiv Menon KC is a British barrister at Garden Court Chambers who has 30 years of experience and expertise in a wide range of serious, complex and high-profile cases.

He has a particular interest in cases involving human rights violations, miscarriages of justice, political protest and the abuse of power by the state. He was instructed in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, the Hillsborough disaster Inquests, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and the UK Covid-19 Inquiry. He currently represents 12 individuals and organisations at the Undercover Policing Inquiry.

Contempt of Court proceedings

Rajiv Menon KC, a highly respected silk at Garden Court Chambers and a former head of chambers, is facing proceedings for Contempt of Court. The alleged contempt concerns a closing speech that Rajiv delivered to a jury at the Woolwich Crown Court in January 2026. The trial involved pro-Palestine activists causing criminal damage to weapons and other property at a factory in Filton, Bristol belonging to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer.

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.

Until this week, any publication about Rajiv being prosecuted for contempt has been prohibited by various Court orders. As a result of reporting restrictions now being lifted, Garden Court Chambers is at last able to comment publicly on this matter. We have supported Rajiv throughout the proceedings, including significant numbers of our members attending court hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Rajiv is independently represented by solicitors and leading counsel who have made powerful arguments about the jurisdictional legality and procedural propriety of the contempt proceedings being brought against Rajiv. Judgment is currently awaited from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). It is hoped that the arguments being advanced will prevail, and that the proceedings against Rajiv will be swiftly concluded without Rajiv having to stand trial. Whatever the outcome, Garden Court Chambers will continue to support Rajiv.

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.

Garden Court statement

We stand in solidarity with Rajiv Menon KC, a member of our sister chambers Garden Court, who is being prosecuted for contempt of court following his closing speech in a high-profile and politically sensitive criminal trial.

Pursuing such proceedings against a barrister arising from their conduct of a jury trial represents a deeply troubling development for the integrity of the justice system.

This prosecution should be unequivocally condemned as a grave attack on the longstanding principle that barristers must be able to represent their clients fearlessly, independently, and without intimidation. The right to robust advocacy – particularly in criminal trials – lies at the heart of the adversarial system. Defence counsel are not mere mouthpieces for the court; they are duty-bound to advance their client’s case with courage, including testing the boundaries of legal argument where necessary.

The suggestion that a barrister may face such personal sanction for the content of a closing speech – an unprecedented step in our experience – risks creating a chilling effect across the legal profession.

If advocates must constantly fear punitive action for advancing arguments, especially in politically sensitive or high-profile cases, the result will be self-censorship, weakened defence representation, and ultimately a diminished right to a fair trial.

This is not simply about one case. It raises fundamental questions about whether the courts will continue to tolerate independent advocacy, or whether defence lawyers will be deterred from fully representing their clients in contentious matters. Any move that undermines that independence threatens the balance of justice itself.

The proper functioning of the legal system depends on barristers being able to act without fear or favour. That principle must be defended – firmly and without compromise.

This statement is made on behalf of the Garden Court North crime team and signed and supported by the following members of Garden Court North:

• Ciara Bartlam
• Rosalind Burgin
• Bethany Currie
• Mira Hammad
• Tasaddat Hussein
• Pragnya Iovine (Pupil)
• Vijay Jagadesham
• Mikhil Karnik
• Lucy Mair
• Ben McCormack
• Alexander McColl
• Elizabeth Mottershaw
• Misha Nayak-Oliver
• Helen Peden
• Avril Rushe
• Lyndsey Sambrooks-Wright
• Iqra Shahid (Pupil)
• Kerry Smith
• Kate Stone
• Alexa Thompson
• Camille Warren
• Anna Watterson
• Pete Weatherby KC
• Christian Weaver

'Dangerous precedent'

“I’ve been at the bar for over 50 years,” said Michael Mansfield KC, a prominent human rights barrister who has worked with Menon on several high-profile cases.

“I’m extremely concerned about the issues that are at the centre of this initiative which has never been done before as far as I’m aware, particularly the chilling effect upon the critical concept of a fiercely independent bar, fearless in its pursuit of justice on behalf of those it represents.”

The proceedings against Menon – and concerns over their impact – come as the Labour government has moved to scrap Jury trials for offences that carry a sentence of less than three years.

The government has said the changes will clear a massive backlog of cases in the system while legal professionals say the change could, among other concerns, risk public confidence in the justice system.

Powerful closing speech

On 8 May 2026, Jonathan Cook posted on X:

One of my most popular articles ever included a long extract from a powerful closing speech by barrister Rajiv Menon during a Palestine Action trial in January. In the end, the Jury refused to convict the six defendants.

Menon is now on trial for that closing speech – for reminding the Jury that they had a 350-year-old right in law to follow their conscience in reaching a verdict, even if it meant defying a direction from the Judge to convict.

Paradoxically, Menon joked in his speech that, because of that earlier legal principle, the Judge, unlike his counterpart in 1670, could not lock them, the Jurors, up were they to choose to follow their consciences.

Instead, the Judge is seeking to lock up the barrister. Does 2026 qualify as an improvement on 1670?

It is believed that this is the first time a barrister has been tried for comments made to a jury in his closing speech. That should serve as a potent reminder of just us how authoritarian the current political moment is, and of how quickly long-established legal rights are being dismantled to protect British collusion in genocide.

Read my article – and the part of the speech for which Menon is being tried – here: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2026-01-14/filton-trial-jury-defy-judge/

Menon's speech

Rajiv Menon's closing speech on behalf of defendant Charlotte Head on 8 January 2026:

Ms Heer (the prosecution barrister) in her closing speech, on much the same theme, told you that the defendants who had given evidence had not raised any real challenge to the charge of criminal damage. I’m sorry, but it is not right to say that the defendants who gave evidence did not raise any challenge. They did raise a challenge. They maintained that they had a lawful excuse. That was their challenge. But what’s happened is that His Lordship (the trial Judge, Mr Justice Johnson) has withdrawn that defence as a matter of law, and that’s the true position that we find ourselves in. Their challenge was lawful excuse and the court has withdrawn that as a lawful defence. So where does that leave you, the members of the Jury?

You could be forgiven for thinking that His Lordship is in fact directing you, as a matter of law, to convict Charlotte [Head], who I’ll focus on for now, of criminal damage. But you’d be wrong to think that. His Lordship is not directing you to convict. In fact, not only is he not directing you to convict, but he’s also absolutely forbidden from doing so as a matter of law. The law is crystal clear on this point. No Judge in any criminal case is allowed to direct a Jury to convict any defendant of any criminal charge, whatever the evidence might be. That is the law.

Please remember that fundamental principle at all times when you retire. Please don’t misinterpret anything in His Lordship’s directions or summing up (which will follow the defence speeches) as amounting to a legal direction to convict. That would be a terrible mistake to make. I repeat, His Lordship is absolutely not directing you to convict, because he’s barred as a matter of law from doing so.

The Jury has every right to be confused about this because it is confusing. You have every right to think that the distinction between withdrawing the only available defence to a criminal charge on the facts, and a direction to convict, is at best a distinction without a difference. You have every right to think that the two effectively amount to the same thing. But the fact of the matter is they are absolutely not the same thing. They are fundamentally different. Let me try and explain it.

If you look at the legal directions and the first section, headed 'Functions Of Judge And Jury', you’ll see it’s quite lengthy. I’m not going to go through it point by point, but I’d ask you to read it carefully when you retire. All the directions in this document are important, but I’d suggest that the directions on the function of Judge and Jury are particularly important in this case. The key point to summarise is that the facts, and the verdicts you return having considered the facts, are solely for you.

So nobody, not even His Lordship, can direct you as to what factual conclusions to reach. Nobody, not even His Lordship, can direct you to convict. It’s as simple as that. That’s the law. So, for the avoidance of any doubt about this, I am absolutely not asking you to disregard His Lordship’s legal directions. On the contrary, I’m asking you to follow them, in particular this section on functions of Judge and Jury, and remind you that nobody, not even His Lordship, can dictate to you what factual conclusions to reach in this case, nor direct you to convict the defendants of any of the charges they face.

Indeed, it was as long ago as 1670 that the independence of the Jury was definitively established beyond question. William Penn and William Meade were Quakers. They were prosecuted for preaching to an unlawful assembly. It was a crime in 1670 (about 20 or 30 years after the end of the English Civil war) to have a religious assembly of more than five people outside the auspices of the Church of England. And William Penn and William Meade had preached to a group of more than five people on the streets of London. They stood trial at the Old Bailey before a Judge and Jury, and at the end of the evidence, the Judge directed the Jury to convict, but the Jury refused to convict.

The Judge was furious, and again ordered the Jury to convict, stating that they would not be dismissed until they did so. The Jury again refused to convict. The Judge remanded the entire Jury in custody for two days and ordered that they be denied all food and water. As the Jurors were being taken from court to prison, William Penn, it is said, shouted out, “You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away your right”, to which one member of the Jury, Edward Bushel, replied, “Nor shall we ever do.” When the Jury returned to court two days later, having not had any food or water for that period, the Judge again ordered them to convict. The Jury continued to refuse and returned a verdict of not guilty.

The Judge fined the Jury for Contempt of Court and remanded them in custody until the fines were paid. Eight Jurors paid their fines, but four refused, and one of those was Edward Bushel, who then petitioned a higher Court for what is called a writ of habeas corpus, which, if issued by the Court, would result in his immediate release from custody. The higher Court issued that writ, and Edward Bushel and the three others were released, establishing the right of a Jury to return a verdict without fear of punishment from the trial Judge.

This legal challenge by Edward Bushel has come to be known as Bushel’s case and is one of the most celebrated cases in British legal history. There’s a marble plaque inside the Old Bailey in central London, which reads as follows:

Near this site, William Penn and William Meade were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the Jury, Thomas Veer, Edward Bushel, and 10 others who refused to give a verdict against them, although locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final verdict of not guilty. The case of these Jurymen was reviewed on a writ of habeas corpus, and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court, which established the right of Juries to give their verdict according to their convictions.

Putting that all together, members of the Jury, you can find Charlotte and her co-defendants not guilty of criminal damage. It is a perfectly fair and proper verdict for you to return in this case. Please don’t think for one moment that you are somehow barred as a matter of law from doing so. Indeed, you should find Charlotte and her co-defendants not guilty of criminal damage. It will undoubtedly take great courage and independence, I accept, to do so. But the facts ultimately are solely for you. Please don’t forget that. And don’t worry – the good news is that we’ve moved on since 1670. There is no prospect of you being imprisoned or fined for the factual conclusions you reach or for the verdicts you return.

And that brings me, as far as criminal damage is concerned, to His Lordship’s summing up of the evidence, which will follow defence speeches. Now, I have no idea how he is going to pitch this, how he is going to approach his summary of the evidence. He might do what most Judges do these days, namely sum up the evidence without making any comment, without expressing any opinion, without any edge, without any spin, without any innuendo, i.e. 100% neutrality. You may think that would be the fairest approach to take, given a trial Judge is like a referee or umpire. But our system does allow Judges to make comment and express opinion, even strongly, in certain circumstances. As long as the summing up remains balanced and impartial, as long as the fundamental right of every defendant to a fair trial isn’t undermined, as long as the Jury is directed that you are entitled to reject any judicial opinion on the facts if you wish, as His Lordship has already directed you, and as long as any judicial opinion or comment is not wrongly expressed as a legal direction that you must follow. So if His Lordship does decide to express an opinion on the evidence, please do not, under any circumstances, misinterpret that opinion as a legal direction, because it is not.

Obviously, if you agree with the Judge’s opinion, you may adopt it. But the opposite is equally true. If you don’t agree with the Judge’s opinion, you may reject it. That is your right. That is your privilege, as Jurors, because I repeat, you are the sole Judges of the facts. Nobody, not even His Lordship, can direct you to convict in this case. So that’s what I say about criminal damage.

Menon wins contempt challenge

On 12 May 2026, Legal Futures reported that the Court of Appeal had set aside Crown Court Judge Lord Justice Edis' referral of Rajiv Menon for Contempt of Court proceedings after finding the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to pursue them.

That decision left the matter back with Mr Justice Johnson.

The Judge may, subject to any further points made on behalf of Menon, refer the barrister to Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, or to the Bar Standards Board, the Appeal Court said.

Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.