Hickman & Rose’s Jenny Wiltshire has issued a statement to the press regarding the contempt of court proceedings faced by her client, the barrister Rajiv Menon KC of Garden Court Chambers.
Mr Menon KC faces contempt of court proceedings in respect of the closing speech he gave to the jury in defence of his client, Charlotte Head.
Jenny’s statement – reproduced in full below – comes after Mr Menon gave an interview to the news website Democracy Now.
Jenny Wiltshire, Head of Serious and General Crime at Hickman & Rose, said:
“Rajiv is grateful for the many messages of support he has received and is continuing to receive in relation to the contempt of court proceedings he is facing in respect of the closing speech he gave to the jury in defence of his client, Charlotte Head.
“The legal challenges that Rajiv has so far made are necessarily procedural and jurisdictional. The pending appeal before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), which is awaiting a hearing date, concerns the legality of the Crown Court having purported to invoke a summary procedure on 22 June and 29 June 2026, more than five months after Rajiv’s speech, and further alleges that the proceedings against Rajiv raise apparent prejudice/bias.
“That the nature of the challenges thus far have been largely procedural and jurisdictional means that there has been no forum in which to set out Rajiv’s strong legal and factual challenges to the allegations of contempt themselves.
“As the proceedings are currently ongoing, it is not appropriate to set out the details of his challenges now. What can be said at this stage is that Rajiv’s defence is not limited to the issue of jury equity but includes the nature and extent of the trial judge’s orders themselves which are alleged to have been in force and breached. If the time ever comes when the details of Rajiv’s challenges need to be presented, this will be done in full.
“Nevertheless, it is important that all of those showing any interest in this matter know that Rajiv strenuously denies that the speech he gave breached any order of the trial judge, was intended to do so, or was in any way in contempt of court.
“This is separate from the profoundly concerning decision by several senior judges to pursue this matter as a potential contempt of court and the procedure which has now been adopted on two separate occasions, which must be having a chilling effect upon other barristers and advocates.”
