In the matter of contempt proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC

Crown CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Case Number: T2024 0175 / T2024 7092

In the Crown Court at Woolwich
(Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice)

29 June 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin

In the matter of contempt proceedings against
Rajiv Menon KC (“the Respondent”)

Summons and order

IMPORTANT NOTICE

The Court has instituted proceedings against you for alleged contempt of court. The Court has power to send you to prison, to fine you or seize your assets if it finds that any of the allegations made against you are true and amount to a contempt of court.

You must attend Court on the date specified in this order. It is in your own interest to do so. If you consider the allegations are not true you may tell the Court why. If it is established that they are true, you may tell the Court of any good reason why they do not amount to a contempt of court, or, if they do, why you should not be punished.

You should read all of this Summons with care.

Amongst other things, this Summons requires you to attend a hearing before the Honourable Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL, on 28 July 2026 at 10.30am, or such other time as may be notified to you (“the Hearing”).

YOU MUST ATTEND THE HEARING. If you do not attend, the Court may proceed in your absence, and you may be unrepresented, and a warrant for your arrest may be issued. You are advised to seek legal advice without any further delay. Legal aid is available for advice and representation in respect of the contempt application.

DO NOT IGNORE THESE PROCEEDINGS

This SUMMONS has been issued at the direction of the Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin (“the Judge”), Presiding Judge of Wales, the matter having been referred to him by the Order of Mr Justice Johnson dated 22 June 2026.

The Judge considered the bundle of papers accompanying the Order of 22 June 2026 (“the Contempt Bundle”).

The Judge is satisfied that there is evidence which raises a prima facie case that the Respondent may have acted in contempt of court and that it is in the public interest for contempt proceedings to be instituted by the Court. The acts of the Respondent alleged to amount to contempt of court are set out in the Schedule to this Order.

THE HEARING

RAJIV MENON KC, you MUST attend a hearing before the Crown Court at Woolwich sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand LONDON WC2A 2LL, on 28 JULY 2026 at 10.30am or such other time as may be notified to you. At the Hearing, the Court will decide whether your conduct amounts to a contempt of court and, if so, what, if any, sanction to impose.

If you do not attend the Court on the date and at the time stated above the Court may proceed in your absence and/or a warrant may be issued for your arrest and production at the Court

WITHOUT A HEARING the Court further Orders

  1. The Contempt Bundle considered by the Judge shall be served on the Respondent together with this Summons and Order.
  2. Unless the Judge assigned to hear the proceedings directs otherwise, no further evidence in support of the allegations shall be served on the Respondent without the Court’s permission. The primary materials relied upon in support of the allegations are the rulings and directions made by the trial judge and the speech made to the jury by the Respondent, all of which are contained in the Contempt Bundle.
  3. The issues will be determined at the Hearing by Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb, sitting as a Judge of the Crown Court at Woolwich.
  4. The Hearing, at which Mr Menon will be entitled to give evidence, if so advised, and to call witnesses will be fixed for 28 July 2026 with an initial time estimate of two days. The Court will determine the substantive questions raised in these proceedings at the Hearing. The parties must notify listing if they consider that the time estimate should be changed.
  5. Any grounds of defence and written evidence upon which the Respondent relies, must be filed with the Crown Court at Woolwich, by 4pm on 17 July 2026. The Respondent is entitled, but not obliged, to give evidence orally or in writing. If he chooses to file a witness statement, he must do so by this date. The statements of any other witnesses upon which he seeks to rely must be served by this date.
  6. If counsel instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions participates in the proceedings, and subject to any ruling by the Judge assigned to hear the proceedings as to standing and the scope of that participation, the Director of Public Prosecutions may respond in writing by 4pm on 21 July 2026 if so advised, and must indicate by then whether he wishes to dispute any witness evidence which has been served.
  7. The Respondent, and the Director of Public Prosecutions if participating in the proceedings, must file and exchange skeleton arguments no later than 10am on 23 July 2026.
  8. Unless otherwise directed by the Judge assigned to hear the proceedings, and if counsel instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions participates in the proceedings, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall be responsible for preparing and filing a joint authorities bundle by 10am on 24 July 2026.
  9. At the Hearing, the Court will have read the documents in the Contempt Bundle, and, unless the Court otherwise directs, will not receive any further evidence in support of the allegations identified in the Schedule to this Order.
  10. The Court invites counsel instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to attend the Hearing and, if necessary (and subject to any ruling as to standing), to ask questions of any witnesses and to make submissions.
  11. In the event that there is any objection to the participation of counsel instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that objection shall be dealt with as a preliminary issue at the Hearing.

Reasons

A. By an Order dated 22 June 2026, made following the judgment of Mr Justice Johnson of the same date, the question whether proceedings for contempt of court should be instituted against Rajiv Menon KC was referred to me for decision.

B. I have considered the Order, the judgment, the relevant rulings made during the trial, the passages of the closing speech relied upon, and the written materials contained in the bundle provided to me.

C. It is important at the outset to identify the nature of the decision which I am required to make. I am not determining whether Mr Menon KC is guilty of contempt of court. Nor is it appropriate for me to make concluded findings upon the matters alleged. My task is the more limited one of deciding whether there is sufficient material to justify the institution of contempt proceedings and whether it is in the public interest to do so.

D. Having considered the materials independently, I am satisfied that there is sufficient material to justify the institution of contempt proceedings against Mr Menon KC in respect of parts of his closing address to the jury. That material is capable of supporting allegations that, in identified respects, the address departed from rulings made by the trial judge, or was in disobedience of them, in a manner arguably capable of interfering with, or creating a real risk of impeding, the due administration of justice. The allegations to be pursued are those set out in the Schedule to this Order.

E. In deciding whether it is in the public interest that contempt proceedings should be instituted, I bear fully in mind the importance of fearless advocacy. Advocates owe a duty to represent their clients fearlessly and by all lawful means. The Court must therefore exercise real caution before invoking the contempt jurisdiction in relation to what was said by counsel in the course of a criminal trial.

F. At the same time, it is fundamental to the rule of law that orders and rulings made by a judge in the course of a criminal trial are obeyed by those participating in the proceedings, including the advocates appearing in the case. If a ruling is said to be wrong in law, or otherwise open to challenge, the law provides means by which that may be corrected. It is not for those participating in the proceedings to decide with which rulings they will comply and which they will not.

G. Where there is sufficient material to support allegations that rulings and directions given by the trial judge were disobeyed in a manner capable of affecting the due administration of justice, I am satisfied it is in the public interest that contempt proceedings be instituted so that the matter can be adjudicated in accordance with law.

H. Accordingly, I direct that proceedings for contempt of court be instituted against Mr Menon KC upon the allegations set out in the Schedule to this Order. In accordance with the Order of 22 June 2026 and the applicable procedural rules, those proceedings are to be assigned to a High Court Judge in the Crown Court at Woolwich (albeit sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice).

I. I have considered the draft form of order appended to the judgment of Mr Justice Johnson. I have not adopted it mechanically. The decision whether to institute proceedings, and the formulation of the allegations if proceedings are instituted, are matters for me. I have therefore framed the Schedule in my own terms, so as to identify the substance of the alleged contempts with sufficient clarity. The Schedule is intended to capture, in grouped form, the alleged departures from the rulings and directions made in the trial. Any differences from the draft order appended to the judgment are matters of formulation, precision and fairness. They do not amount to any finding on the merits, nor should they be treated as determining any issue which is reserved to the Judge assigned to hear the proceedings.

J. My Order determines only that contempt proceedings should be instituted. It determines no issue as to liability. All such issues are reserved to the Judge assigned to hear the contempt proceedings.

K. I have given directions to ensure that the matter comes before the Court promptly with directions for the filing of any evidence.

29 June 2026

NOTICE TO RAJIV MENON KC: YOUR RIGHTS

You have the right to be legally represented in any contempt proceedings.

You are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation and to apply for legal aid which may be available without any means test.

You are entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for the hearing of the contempt application against you.

You are entitled but not obliged to give written and oral evidence in your defence.

You have the right to remain silent and may not be compelled to answer any question the answer to which may incriminate you.

If you do not attend any contempt hearing, the Court may proceed in your absence. Whether or not you attend, the Court will only find you in contempt if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the facts constituting contempt and that they do constitute contempt.

If the Court is satisfied that you have committed a contempt, the Court may punish you by a fine, imprisonment, confiscation of assets or other punishment permitted under the law.

If you admit the contempt and wish to apologise to the Court, that is likely to reduce the seriousness of any punishment by the Court.

The Court will sit in public, unless and to the extent that the Court orders otherwise. Its findings will be made public.

You will have a right of appeal against any finding of contempt, or any sanction, to the Court of Appeal.

SCHEDULE: Allegations of contempt of court

The passages relied upon include, in particular, those identified in paragraph 4 of the judgment of Mr Justice Johnson dated 22 June 2026 and in the ruling dated 12 January 2026. It is alleged that the Respondent created a real risk of impeding the proper administration of justice in that, on 8 January 2026, in the knowledge of rulings and directions given by the Court on 3 July 2025, 14 November 2025, 2 December 2025, 22 December 2025 and 6 January 2026, the Respondent, in a speech to the jury in R v Head and others, contrary to those rulings and directions:

(1) informed the jury of the principle of jury equity;

(2) asked the jury to apply the principle of jury equity;

(3) thereby invited, or was capable of inviting, the jury to disregard the Court’s rulings of law and/or their oaths or affirmations as jurors;

(4) told the jury that the judge may not direct the jury to convict;

(5) invited the jury to disregard the Court’s directions that they should put views of the Middle East and the war in Gaza, and emotion, to one side;

(6) suggested that the prosecution accepted, or did not dispute, evidence as to the history of the Middle East and the role of Elbit Systems in supplying weapons to Israel, and that this evidence was critical to the jury reaching true verdicts; and

(7) misstated or mischaracterised the Court’s ruling and its answer to the jury question by suggesting that the Court had prevented the defendants from pursuing a defence of lawful excuse, and that the Court had ruled that the defendants had no lawful excuse for damaging property belonging to Elbit Systems.

It is alleged that the Respondent acted deliberately, in the knowledge of the Court’s rulings and directions. Further or alternatively, it is alleged that the Respondent deliberately breached those rulings and directions knowing that his conduct would create, or was capable of creating, a real risk of impeding the administration of justice.

It is further alleged that, in the same speech to the jury, the Respondent made statements which were capable of suggesting to the jury that the Court was not impartial, in that he referred to the defendants being prevented from giving evidence about Elbit Systems, and later referred to Elbit Systems being “protected” and “wined and dined in the corridors of power”.

Those statements were capable of creating the impression that the defendants had been treated unfairly and that Elbit Systems had been improperly protected in the proceedings.