Your support helps us to tell the story<\/p>\n
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.<\/p>\n
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.<\/p>\n
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.<\/p>\n
Your support makes all the difference.<\/strong>Read more<\/p>\n A leading human rights barrister has won a Court of Appeal<\/a> bid over his referral for contempt<\/a> of court during his closing speech in the trial of Palestine Action<\/a> activists. <\/p>\n Rajiv Menon KC was accused of misleading the jury and ignoring the directions of the trial judge when representing one of the six people who invaded the UK site of Israeli defence firm<\/a> Elbit Systems<\/a> at a trial in January.<\/p>\n Mr Justice Johnson, who oversaw the criminal trial, asked the High Court to consider whether Mr Menon\u2019s actions amounted to contempt of court in what are believed to be the first proceedings brought against a barrister in respect of a jury speech. <\/p>\n In March, Lord Justice Edis, sitting as a High Court judge, ruled Mr Menon should be given a summons for a hearing over the allegations of contempt. Mr Menon appealed against this decision, arguing that the High Court did not have the power to consider the case and make these orders.<\/p>\n In a ruling on Tuesday, three Court of Appeal judges ruled in the barrister\u2019s favour and found that Mr Justice Johnson did not have the power to send the contempt allegation to the High Court. <\/p>\n They said that a Crown Court judge cannot refer an alleged contempt such as this directly to the High Court, adding: \u201cThe overwhelming weight of authority indicates that no such direct route exists\u201d. <\/p>\n The Court of Appeal judges said Mr Justice Johnson could have referred the alleged contempt to another High Court judge acting as a Crown Court judge \u201cif a summary process was thought to be required\u201d.<\/p>\n The judges concluded Mr Justice Johnson did not have the power to make a direct reference to the High Court, which also would not have had the power to deal with the case without a reference to the Attorney General.<\/p>\n They said the case should now be sent back to Mr Justice Johnson to consider the next steps. The trial judge could now send the case to the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, for consideration. <\/p>\n Jenny Wiltshire, head of serious and general crime at Hickman and Rose who represented Mr Menon, said after the judgment: \u201cRajiv is delighted that the Court of Appeal has found in his favour and decided that the Filton trial judge did not have the power to refer him directly to the High Court to be prosecuted for contempt of court, and that the High Court did not have the power to accept the reference in the absence of an application by the Attorney General in the public interest.<\/p>\n \u201cRajiv would like to thank his lawyers and all those who have supported him during this difficult time. He hopes that this is now the end of the matter.<\/p>\n \u201cThis unprecedented attempt to criminalise lawyers for doing their job and representing their clients fearlessly should never be repeated.\u201d<\/p>\n