The case. Rajiv Menon KC faces contempt proceedings over words spoken in a criminal defence closing speech in R v Head and others on 8 January 2026. No one has found him guilty of contempt. The first route taken against him was set aside by the Court of Appeal on 12 May 2026 on jurisdictional grounds. Mr Justice Johnson referred the matter to the Presiding Judge on 22 June 2026, and proceedings were instituted on 29 June 2026, with a hearing listed for 28 July 2026.
Why this is unfair. The alleged conduct is courtroom advocacy, a closing speech to a jury, not evidence and not conduct outside court. Judges must control trials, but ordinary remedies already exist when counsel is said to have crossed a line: directions, trial management, appeal, wasted costs and professional regulation. Criminal contempt is an exceptional coercive power. Using it as a substitute disciplinary route for contested defence advocacy risks making every advocate quieter in precisely the cases where fearless representation matters most.
The chilling effect. Garden Court Chambers has described the proceedings as unprecedented. The Bar Council has warned that proceedings of this kind may have a chilling effect on the profession. That does not require anyone to prejudge the hearing. It requires public institutions to defend the principle that a fair trial depends on defence advocates being able to represent unpopular clients fearlessly.