Save Britain's Juries

No barrister in British legal history has ever faced contempt proceedings over the content of a closing speech.

Rajiv Menon now faces up to two years in prison for words that barristers have recited in court for centuries.

His case has become a test of a far larger principle: do jurors have a right to acquit according to their conscience, even where a judge's directions point toward conviction? Barristers can now be forbidden by judges from mentioning this principle — sometimes called jury equity — even though the independence of juries has been recognised in law since the 1670 case of R v Penn & Mead, and is honoured on a plaque at the Old Bailey itself.

In January 2026, when Rajiv Menon KC referred to this history while defending Charlotte Head, one of the Palestine Action defendants charged over the 2024 Filton factory protest. Head was later acquitted, and the trial judge accused Menon of contempt of court — despite later accepting there was nothing improper in citing the 1670 case.

Menon now faces a two-day contempt trial on 28 July. If the independence of juries can no longer be spoken of in court without risking prison, every defendant's ability to receive a fearless defence is put at risk.

David Lammy and Richard Hermer: do you want to be remembered on another plaque in the Old Bailey as those that destroyed Britain’s juries?