Contempt proceedings against the leading KC raise concerns over advocacy and free representation
Rajiv Menon, a senior barrister at Garden Court Chambers and former head of chambers, is facing contempt of court proceedings linked to a closing speech delivered during a criminal trial at Woolwich Crown Court earlier this year. The alleged contempt relates to Menon’s closing address to a jury in January 2026 during the trial of pro-Palestinian activists accused of causing criminal damage at a factory in Filton, Bristol, operated by Elbit Systems.
According to a public statement issued by Garden Court Chambers after reporting restrictions were lifted, the proceedings are believed to be the first known prosecution of a barrister for contempt arising from a closing speech delivered in a criminal trial before a jury.
The chambers also described the legal procedure being used in the case as “wholly novel and without historical precedent”. The alleged contempt proceedings had previously been subject to court-imposed reporting restrictions, preventing public reporting of the case until this week.
Garden Court Chambers confirmed it has supported Menon throughout the proceedings, including attendance by members of Senior KCchambers at hearings held at the Royal Courts of Justice. Menon is being represented independently by solicitors and leading counsel. According to the statement, legal arguments have been advanced challenging both the jurisdictional basis and procedural legality of the contempt proceedings.
The matter is currently awaiting judgment from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Garden Court Chambers stated it hoped the legal arguments would succeed and that the proceedings would conclude without Menon being required to stand trial. The chambers added that it would continue to support him regardless of the outcome.
The case has prompted wider concern within parts of the legal profession regarding the implications for criminal advocacy and representation in politically sensitive cases. In its statement, Garden Court Chambers said it was “extremely concerned” about what it described as the potential chilling effect on barristers if the state seeks to criminalise advocacy conducted on behalf of clients during criminal proceedings.
The chambers argued that such action could undermine public confidence in the ability of defendants to receive robust legal representation, particularly in controversial or politically charged trials. Contempt of court proceedings can arise where conduct is alleged to interfere with the administration of justice or breach court rules or orders. However, prosecutions relating directly to advocacy before a jury are exceptionally rare. No findings have yet been made against Menon, and the legal challenge to the proceedings remains ongoing before the Court of Appeal.