CBA Press Release 02.07.26
Dear Members,
This morning the Times published an article by Catherine Baksi discussing the case against Rajiv Menon KC, entitled Criminal lawyers shocked at contempt of court charge for KC.
This case has implications for the criminal bar as a whole. Whilst we recognize that there are views on both sides, the process that has been undertaken to seek resolution cannot pass by without comment.
The full Times article should be read – you can find it here
It contains cogent comments from a number of our members, including Michael Mansfield KC and Keir Monteith KC, together with others who have expressed the competing arguments.
The CBA are also quoted in the article. For completeness, our full comment is set out for your information below.
Proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC – Criminal Bar Association Comment
The Criminal Bar Association (‘CBA’) is closely following the developments in the case of Rajiv Menon KC.
Riel Karmy-Jones KC (Chair of the CBA) and Andrew Thomas KC (Vice Chair of the CBA) said:
“This is a case which could have implications for criminal practitioners more widely. In particular, we are concerned about the procedure which has been adopted. No-one disputes the principle that barristers are bound by the rulings and orders made by a trial judge. That is not what this case is about. Rajiv Menon KC has denied that he breached the Judge’s ruling, deliberately or at all, and it is important to remember that this is still an unproven allegation.
It is essential that the Courts continue to recognise the constitutional importance of allowing a barrister to present their client’s case fearlessly and as they consider appropriate, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the law. Fundamentally, that is about the freedom of speech of the citizen – their client – who is entitled to expect their advocate to speak out against the accusations they face.
In Rajiv Menon’s case, we are troubled by the process which is being followed. The Court has decided to follow a summary process instead of referring the case to the Attorney General to decide whether it is in the public interest to initiate proceedings for contempt of court. The Attorney General’s office has a specialist team of lawyers who are familiar with dealing with contempt of court cases. They gather the evidence, consider the arguments and determine in the conventional way whether proceedings are in the public interest.
In this case, the trial judge has decided to follow a different procedure. He has now referred the case to another High Court Judge to consider using the ‘summary procedure’ for contempt. The summary procedure exists so that a Judge can take swift action, there and then, where necessary to protect the integrity of the ongoing case. If someone disrupts a hearing a Judge has to act decisively to deal with the problem so that the trial can continue unaffected.
In Rajiv Menon’s case, the trial is over. The events complained of took place 6 months ago. There is no urgency. There is no reason not to refer the case to the Attorney General to take an independent decision on whether proceedings for contempt are necessary.
There is an important constitutional principle at the heart of this. In criminal cases, Judges do not ordinarily decide whether proceedings are in the public interest. That decision is taken by the CPS or by some other independent prosecutor. Crown Court judges faithfully maintain that boundary. The role of the Judge is to adjudicate the case before them dispassionately. They do not enter the fray to prosecute or defend the case, nor are they swayed by the personal circumstances of the individual parties.
The suggestion that a Judge should decide whether a prosecution of Rajiv Menon KC for contempt is in the public interest is a novel and worrying departure from the recognised norms of criminal procedure.
The fact that the Judge himself was directly involved in the events which are the subject of the alleged contempt is all the more reason why an independent decision on whether action is proportionate and in the public interest should be taken by the Attorney General.”
Riel Karmy‑Jones KC Andrew Thomas KC
Chair Vice‑Chair
View more news