In December 2025, a trial was taking place in the Crown Court at Woolwich before Johnson J (“the trial judge”). Six defendants were charged with offences arising out of an incident on 6 August 2024 at a factory in Filton, Bristol, occupied and operated by Elbit Systems Ltd.
Rajiv Menon KC was leading counsel representing Charlotte Head, the first defendant named on the indictment.
There were rulings of law before and during the trial, including in relation to what is sometimes called jury equity; to the defence of lawful excuse to a count of criminal damage; and to the relevance and admissibility of certain evidence.
Following submissions as to the legal directions to be given to the jury, the trial judge gave a ruling on 22 December 2025 in which he said ...
“No counsel is permitted in their closing speeches to invite the jury to disregard the court’s rulings of law or to disregard their juror oaths or to apply what has been described as the principle of jury equity or to inform them of it.”On 8 January 2026 Mr Menon made his closing speech to the jury on behalf of Ms Head. The trial judge considered that in some passages in that address Mr Menon may have contravened the ruling.
The matter reached the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and was heard by Bean, Dingemans and Stuart-Smith LJ. The court handed down judgment on 12 May 2026.
The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to deal with an alleged contempt in the face of the Crown Court referred to the High Court by the trial judge without the intervention of the Attorney General or Solicitor General.
The Court of Appeal granted a declaration that the Administrative Court and/or the Divisional Court have no jurisdiction, in the absence of an application by the Attorney General, to consider the allegation of contempt against Mr Menon.
There was no jurisdiction to make a direct reference to the High Court and the Divisional Court would not have jurisdiction to deal with the case following any direct reference.
The matter was referred back to the trial judge (Johnson J) who may, subject to any further points made on behalf of Mr Menon, refer the matter to the Attorney General or to the Bar Standards Board (as an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct).
No comments:
Post a Comment