Court of Appeal stays Menon contempt proceedings

The Court of Appeal has stayed contempt proceedings against a silk – after finding his existing appeal challenging jurisdictional and procedural issues must be heard before the contempt trial.

Raviv Menon KC faced a two-day hearing before Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb this week over allegations he was in contempt of court. The allegation of contempt stems from Menon’s closing speech during a trial at Woolwich Crown Court before Mr Justice Johnson. Menon represented a Palestine Action activist.

Speaking at a webinar organised by four barristers’ chambers about his case, Menon said his representatives had expected a stay of the contempt hearing as he had lodged an appeal against various orders and directions arguing that the judges acted without jurisdiction and/or wrongly.

The trial judge refused to stay in the hearing. Menon’s representatives wrote to the Court of Appeal ‘as a matter of urgency’ and appeal judges have now stayed the trial.

Menon told the webinar last week: ‘I am appealing against the orders made by three High Court judges. We filed those grounds on Monday [20 July] and we anticipated that given part of that appeal is the very order that led to the trial that I am due to face [on Tuesday 28 July] that the trial judge would vacate that trial.

‘She informed us that she was not going to be vacating that trial. We have now written as a matter of urgency to the Court of Appeal because it simply does not make any sense and we are hoping that the Court of Appeal will…inform us that my trial currently fixed for Tuesday has been vacated and postponed to some time in the autumn.’

The Court of Appeal judgment, handed down on Friday, found the ‘better course’ was for Menon’s appeal to be determined by the CoA before the substantive contempt application.

Lord Justice Males, in lead judgment, said due to time constraints he and Mrs Justice Cutts directed ‘that those representing Mr Menon should lodge a formal appeal against the decision of Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb to refuse a stay. We allow that appeal and order a stay of the proceedings before Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb’.

The judgment added: ‘In view of the urgency of this matter, with the contempt hearing due to begin in a matter of days, we have had no opportunity to consider in any detail whether the challenge which Mr Menon seeks to bring is arguable.

‘We have not, for example, had time to consider the authorities which were cited to Mr Justice Johnson. Nor have we had an opportunity to consider any arguments which may arise as to this court’s jurisdiction. However, Mr Menon is represented by leading counsel and we are not in a position, without hearing argument (which there is no opportunity to do in the time available), to say that his position is unarguable. It appears to us that it may at least surmount the relatively low hurdle of arguability.’

The contempt hearing has been vacated and the appeal to deal with the alleged jurisdictional and procedural issues has yet to be listed.