Judge in Palestine Action case ‘sorry’ for handling of barrister contempt claim
Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled the judge had wrongly sent the case directly to the High Court
A High Court judge has apologised for his handling of a Contempt of Court allegation against a Palestine Action activist’s barrister, telling a hearing: “I was wrong.”
Mr Justice Johnson asked High Court judges to investigate whether Rajiv Menon KC had flouted his orders and misled the jury during a trial at Woolwich Crown Court.
The incident was sparked by Mr Menon’s closing speech while representing Charlotte Head, a Palestine Action activist who had been involved in criminal damage at the Bristol factory of Israeli defence contractor, Elbit Systems.
Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled the judge had wrongly sent the case directly to the High Court, rather than making a referral to the attorney general or dealing with the matter at the Crown Court.
On Monday, the judge faced an application that he should recuse himself from his role sentencing Head and her co-defendants, after being accused of appearing to be biased.
Referring to his actions over the contempt issue, he told the Old Bailey on Monday: “I was wrong to do that and I’m sorry about that, of course.
“I’m sorry it has meant this will now take longer than it would have done.”
In the criminal case, Head, 29; Samuel Corner, 23; Leona Kamio, 30; and Fatema Rajwani, 21; were found guilty of criminal damage at the Elbit factory on August 6 2024.
An old prison van was used to smash into the property, before sledgehammers and crowbars were wielded to cause an estimated £1 million of damage.
Corner was also found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm after fracturing a police officer’s spine by striking her with a sledgehammer during the night-time raid.
The four activists are in custody awaiting sentencing, and followed Monday’s court hearing over video links from prison.
In his closing speech at the first trial of the case, Mr Menon was accused of going against Mr Justice Johnson’s pre-trial rulings which limited evidence and arguments, including a decision that the activists could not argue they had a “lawful excuse” for their actions because of the activities of the Israeli military in Gaza.
In his closing speech, Mr Menon highlighted a plaque at the Old Bailey which sets out the “right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions”, in a move the judge said was in breach of his directions.
The barrister also said on six occasions that the trial judge could not direct the jury to convict the defendants.
Mr Justice Johnson said: “The effect of Mr Menon’s speech was to invite the jury to disregard my directions that they should put views of the Middle East and the war in Gaza, and emotion, to one side.”
He added that Mr Menon is also accused of misleading the jury when he pointed out that the prosecution had not challenged evidence put forward by the defendants about Elbit’s business interests and the Middle East conflict.
At the hearing on Monday, the judge was accused of giving the impression that he was biased because he sent the contempt allegation to the High Court while Mr Menon was still representing Head at trial.
In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision that he acted unlawfully, the judge was accused by Head’s lawyers of an “unnecessary punitive response” at a time when Mr Menon was on holiday and had not been given the chance to address the judge in person about the contempt allegation.
Responding to the submissions, the judge insisted he had “just sent the papers to another judge to let another court decide what to do”.
But he faces a claim from Head’s lawyers that with his action against Mr Menon, he had “put fear and intimidation on to the most senior of our ranks” and given the impression to observers that he was biased against him and his client.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge rejected the application, ruling: “I find fair-minded and informed observers would not consider there is a real possibility of bias, and I refuse the application to recuse myself from sentencing the defendants on June 12.”
Corner, Kamio and Rajwani had supported the idea that Mr Justice Johnson should be removed from the case ahead of the scheduled sentencing hearing on Friday.
The judge is also facing pressure from supporters of the activists that he should not sentence them on the basis that the criminal damage had a “terrorist connection”.
He made the ruling before the trials took place and could now use that conclusion when passing sentence, leading to tougher jail terms and long-lasting consequences.
The contempt of court allegation against Mr Menon has been returned to Mr Justice Johnson, with a view to him take a fresh decision how it should be handled.