Rajiv Menon KC (Contempt Proceedings Against), Re

Where alleged contempt is committed in the face of a Crown Court, the court may use its summary common-law power when immediate action is necessary. Otherwise, the established route is referral to the Attorney General for consideration of proceedings in the Divisional Court. A Crown Court judge has no third route of directly referring the allegation to the High Court. Rule 81.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not enlarge the High Court’s jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt of another court. If summary proceedings are required, the matter may be referred to another High Court judge sitting as a Crown Court judge. Procedural convenience cannot displace these jurisdictional limits.

During a Crown Court trial, Johnson J ruled that parts of Rajiv Menon KC’s closing speech breached earlier rulings concerning what could be put to the jury. The judge made no finding that the breach was deliberate. After the trial ended, he referred the matter directly to the Administrative Court for consideration of possible contempt proceedings.

Edis LJ, sitting in the Administrative Court, declined to terminate the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. He initiated proceedings of the court’s own motion, directed that a summons be served, and ordered that the matter be determined by a Divisional Court. Mr Menon appealed, challenging the High Court’s jurisdiction and the procedure adopted. The central issue was whether the High Court could entertain an alleged contempt in the face of the Crown Court without an application by the Attorney General.

Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal decided the jurisdiction issue immediately because an invalid Divisional Court process could otherwise lead to a later appeal to the Supreme Court under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.

1. A superior court of record has a common-law power to deal summarily with contempt in the face of the court. Any court may refer such a matter to the Attorney General. However, a Crown Court judge has no third route by which to refer alleged contempt directly to the High Court.
2. The modern authorities, including Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73, Attorney General v Dallas [2012] 1 WLR 991 and Re Yaxley-Lennon [2018] 1 WLR 5400, establish that summary action should be taken only where immediate action is necessary. Otherwise, the matter should be left to the Attorney General.
3. The Courts Act 1971 made the Crown Court a superior court of record and gave it the same contempt powers as the High Court. Under section 8(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, a High Court judge sitting in the Crown Court exercises the powers of the Crown Court. That does not make a reference to the Administrative Court or Divisional Court valid.
4. The Court approved the analysis in Solicitor General v Holmes [2019] EWHC 1483 (Admin). Rule 81.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules concerns the High Court’s own-initiative jurisdiction over contempt of that court. It does not permit the High Court to initiate proceedings for contempt of another court. The contrary approach in R (Bailey and Morris) v Secretary of State for Justice; Parole Board for England and Wales, Interested Party [2023] EWHC 821 (Admin) could not be followed.
5. The Judicial Office Advisory Note had no force of law. The trial judge could have referred the matter to the Attorney General, to the Bar Standards Board, or to another High Court judge sitting as a Crown Court judge if summary proceedings were required.

The directions of Edis LJ were set aside. A declaration was granted that the Administrative Court and/or Divisional Court had no jurisdiction, absent an application by the Attorney General, to consider the allegation of contempt.

1. Administrative Court: On 11 March 2026 Edis LJ declined to terminate the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds, initiated contempt proceedings of the court’s own motion, directed service of a summons, and ordered determination by a Divisional Court. The order was sealed on 13 March 2026.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted. The appeal was allowed on 12 May 2026, the directions were set aside, and the jurisdictional declaration was granted.