The Guardian80%
Palestine Action barrister’s prosecution criticised as ‘chilling’ 65%
By Haroon Siddique85%
7/23/2026, 8:52:21 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Pessimism Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 53.5% saturation with 297 hits. Analysis detected 1,096 faulty-reasoning hits from 555 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.3% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,331 of 20,473 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.20% of the article peer group.
The prosecution of a leading human rights barrister for contempt of court over his closing speech during a trial of Palestine Action activists has left lawyers fearful of doing their job, the chair of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has said.
Rajiv Menon KC, who was acting for the defence, is due to stand trial next week, accused of breaching the judge’s directions in the trial of six people for a direct action protest at an arms factory of the Israeli subsidiary Elbit Systems UK in Filton, near Bristol, in 2024.
On Wednesday, senior legal figures criticised the prosecution of Menon, believed to be the first barrister to be prosecuted over remarks made during a closing speech.
Menon is accused of breaching a judge’s directions in the trial of six people over a protest in 2024.
Photograph: Garden Court Chambers
Riel Karmy-Jones KC, the chair of the CBA, told the online meeting: “We have heard of barristers changing their speeches or being told to change them – including in cases where no direction has been given by a judge.
And that really can’t be ignored, because people at the criminal bar have become uncertain and scared of what they can and can’t say; scared that somehow they might be – at the end of a trial where they have faithfully represented their client themselves – facing a charge of criminal contempt.
“It is starting to feel like it’s about the politics of the subject matter of the trial, rather than the core principles of how a barrister represents his client.”
Last month, the trial judge in the Palestine Action case, Mr Justice Johnson, referred the question of whether Menon should face contempt of court proceedings to another judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, who subsequently ruled that he should.
It came after a previous attempt to refer Menon was overturned on appeal on procedural grounds.
The Labour peer and former Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said criticising judges was a delicate and dangerous thing to do given the threats they could face but that in Menon’s case they had made “a terrible, capricious mistake” and acted in “a very chilling manner”.
In a written message, her fellow Labour peer Helena Kennedy KC, one of the UK’s most renowned criminal lawyers, described Menon’s prosecution as “another assault upon our justice system … [which] ought to be resisted”, while the leading human rights lawyer Gareth Pierce called the prosecution “terrifying”.
Support for Menon was also conveyed by families of victims of the Hillsborough disaster, whom he represented.
Nicklin’s court order initiating contempt proceedings said Menon was alleged to have deliberately breached Johnson’s 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.”
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.