Appeal judges have dismissed contempt proceedings against a human rights barrister over his closing speech in a Palestine Action trial. Rajiv Menon KC represented Charlotte Head, one of six Palestine Action activists tried over alleged criminal damage at an Elbit Systems UK site in Filton, Bristol. Elbit Systems is one of Israel’s largest defence manufacturers.

The court ruled that the Administrative Court and Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to consider the contempt allegation without an application by the attorney general. The court set aside directions made by Lord Justice Edis, who had ordered that Menon face a substantive contempt hearing in June.

BREAKING

Following an attempt by Mr Justice Johnson to prosecute Palestine Action barrister for “contempt of court” after his closing speech mentioned the legal principle known as
“jury Equity”, Rajiv Menon has won his appeal.

A short🧵 pic.twitter.com/A1twY9PdEo

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) May 12, 2026

The proceedings arose from Menon’s closing speech to jurors during the first Filton trial. Menon had been accused of breaching Mr Justice Johnson’s directions by allegedly referring to jury equity, the principle that jurors may acquit according to conscience, including through reference to Bushell’s Case, a 1670 ruling that established jury independence.

Following the ruling,  Jenny Wiltshire, head of crime at Hickman & Rose who represented Menon, stated, ‘[t]his unprecedented attempt to criminalise lawyers for doing their job and representing their clients fearlessly should never be repeated’.

The case had drawn particular concern from barristers and human rights advocates because it was believed to be the first contempt case brought against a barrister over a jury speech in English legal history. Garden Court Chambers, where Menon is a former head of chambers, had described the procedure as ‘wholly novel and without historical precedent’. ‘We are extremely concerned about the chilling effect on the Bar of the state seeking to criminalise barristers for their representation of their clients’, Garden Court Chambers stated before the ruling.