If you thought the UK couldn’t possibly get more authoritarian, you’d be wrong. We’re now at the stage of appeasing Israel where we’re prosecuting barristers for doing their jobs.
Leading human rights lawyer Rajiv Menon KC is facing trial next week for contempt of court after he defended the Filton 6. He is the first lawyer to ever be prosecuted in the UK over his closing remarks. Menon simply laid out the facts, pointed out that the judge had imposed strict limits during the trial, and reminded the jurors of the law. That’s it.
The defendants were barred from presenting evidence or arguments about the broader context of their actions. In August 2024, they broke into an Elbit Systems factory that supplies weapons to Israel, such as the drones that mimic the sounds of babies crying to lure people into the open and shoot them. They weren’t allowed to discuss Elbit’s products or how they’re used to commit war crimes. They also weren’t allowed to discuss the situation in Gaza, or offer a “lawful excuse” defence. Menon reminded the jury of their right to acquit according to conscience. He described Elbit as “protected” and influential in corridors of power.
The trial judge viewed this as potentially undermining the court’s directions and impartiality. An initial referral for contempt was overturned on appeal, however, the trial judge referred the matter again. If at first you don’t get the outcome you want, just keep going until you do…
The chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, explained how this referral has already had a chilling effect:
“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 […] 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.”
When we look at the Palestine Action trials, we see a pattern where defendants aren’t allowed to present evidence or explain the reasons for their actions. The justification has been that the “why” is not relevant. But this is patently nonsense.
Consider that a person was on trial for punching someone, but they weren’t allowed to explain why they did it. Now imagine they had actually stepped in to protect someone else. Imagine claiming that context isn’t relevant.
Clearly, the reasons for a defendant’s actions are always relevant. It’s up to the jury to decide whether those reasons are good enough. However, in many court cases, defendants are no longer allowed to explain their reasons. This is not just about Palestine Action. It’s also happened to environmental activists. Next it could be anyone the establishment wants to stitch up.
Palestine Action defendants are getting terrorism sentences when they weren’t charged with terrorist offences — and when their alleged crimes took place before the proscription of the group. It gets even worse when you consider that because of that proscription, anyone who expresses support for them can be charged with terrorism and sentenced to up to 14 years in prison.
How can we call this a justice system?
We have defendants who aren’t allowed to explain the reasons for their actions or present evidence, who are given sentences for crimes they weren’t been convicted of. We have juries not being told this would be a possibility. We have a barrister being prosecuted for explaining the law. We have retrials for defendants who weren’t found guilty. We have a second referral for the barrister who had won his appeal. We have other barristers scared to represent their clients. We have people facing jail for supporting defendants. And all of this so that Israel can get on with genocide. It’s fucking insane.
Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.
When one side makes laws that don’t allow the other side to speak it is not a trial it’s a setup to achieve a particular outcome. A travesty to fulfill the requirement of having a trial at all
apart from any other consideration, the sheer waste of public money and court time in pursuing these witch hunts is an absolute scandal.