Prosecution of Palestine Action barrister has left lawyers ‘uncertain and scared'

A Line Has Been Overstepped

The prosecution of Rajiv Menon KC, a leading human rights barrister, for contempt of court has sent shockwaves through the legal community in the UK. Menon is alleged to have breached the judge's directions in a closing speech he delivered in January at the conclusion of the first trial of six Palestine Action defendants accused of causing criminal damage to weapons at an Israeli arms factory outside Bristol. The case has sparked concerns about the relationship between the prosecution and defence, with many feeling uncertain and scared about what they can and cannot say in court.

The Court of Appeal found that Mr Justice Johnson had unlawfully initiated proceedings against Menon by referring the case to the High Court. A panel of three judges concluded that Johnson should have either dealt with the matter himself at the time, or referred it to the attorney general (AG). However, following a hearing last month, Johnson rejected these options and referred the matter again to another High Court judge. He said he had found 'there is a case to answer in contempt' and that it is 'in the public interest to institute' proceedings.

The High Court judge, Justice Nicklin, found in late June 'sufficient material to justify the institution of contempt proceedings against Mr Menon KC in respect of parts of his closing address to the jury'. Menon's hearing is set for next week, and he has filed an appeal.

The case has sparked concerns about the rule of law and the relationship between the prosecution and defence. Pete Weatherby KC noted that 'if there was a case to answer, so serious that the public interest pointed toward prosecution, it should obviously have been referred to the AG, and I cannot begin to imagine why the judge thought otherwise'.

Henry Blaxland KC noted the 'disturbing' involvement of the prosecution in Menon's case, as proceedings were initiated by them via a submission to the judge, saying it is tantamount to an 'abuse of prosecutorial power'. 'By initiating these proceedings, the trust between the prosecution and defence has been fundamentally betrayed, it has been broken,' Blaxland added.

Raju Bhatt, a partner and founder in the leading public and human rights law firm Bhatt Murphy, said that the 'rule of law had been flouted not by [Menon]' but by 'two senior members of the judiciary who were all too ready to exceed their jurisdiction, as the Court of Appeal has already found', referring to Johnson and Justice Edis, to whom the case was initially referred.

Bhatt said that the proceedings against Menon were 'born of fear that the jury might do the right thing'. Liz Davies KC, who attended the meeting, told Middle East Eye some 800 people joined the event, with lawyers, politicians and NGOs also present. 'The unifying message was the extraordinary regard in which Rajiv is held, and the shock that we all have at what is happening to him,' she said.

The case has implications for the rule of law and the relationship between the prosecution and defence in the UK. It highlights the need for caution and respect for the rule of law, particularly in high-profile cases.

A Chilling Effect

The case has sparked concerns about the chilling effect on lawyers in the UK. Many feel uncertain and scared about what they can and cannot say in court. The prosecution's actions have created a sense of fear and uncertainty, which is having a profound impact on the legal community.

The case highlights the need for caution and respect for the rule of law, particularly in high-profile cases. It is essential that the prosecution and defence maintain a healthy relationship, built on trust and respect for the rule of law.

The Road Ahead

The case is set to continue, with Menon's hearing scheduled for next week. The outcome will have significant implications for the rule of law and the relationship between the prosecution and defence in the UK. It is essential that the case is handled with caution and respect for the rule of law.