Rajiv Menon KC, Re

Where a defendant raises an arguable challenge to the jurisdiction of the court that is to try the case, the challenge should ordinarily be determined before the defendant is required to engage with the merits. If determining jurisdiction at the substantive hearing would require preparation on the merits, risk an appeal before the merits were finally determined, or require one judge to review orders made by other judges, prior appellate determination may be the preferable course. A doubtful power to stay the proceedings directly does not prevent the Court of Appeal from considering an appeal against a refusal to vacate the hearing. Practical urgency does not justify proceeding where no compelling need for the hearing has been shown.

The proceedings arose from alleged contempt by Rajiv Menon KC during his closing speech for Charlotte Head at a trial in the Crown Court at Woolwich. A prior Civil Division judgment, [2026] EWCA Civ 573, left the trial judge to decide whether further steps should be taken. Johnson J later directed that summary contempt proceedings be instituted and that the incident be reported under rule 48.5(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Rules. Nicklin J directed that proceedings be instituted, and Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb listed the hearing for 28 July 2026.

Mr Menon lodged an interlocutory appeal, said to be under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, challenging jurisdiction, procedural fairness and potential bias. He also sought a stay or vacation of the contempt hearing. Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb refused to vacate it. The central issue was whether the jurisdictional challenges should be determined before the substantive contempt hearing.

The court allowed the formal appeal against Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb’s refusal to vacate the contempt hearing and ordered a stay. It did not determine the merits of Mr Menon’s jurisdictional or procedural challenges.

1. Route to relief. The court was doubtful whether it had a direct power to stay contempt proceedings in the Crown Court, but it did not need to decide that question. Since an application to vacate the hearing had been made to Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb and refused, it was at least possible that her refusal could be appealed to this court. The court could therefore decide whether the refusal was wrong.
2. Arguability. At short notice the court had no opportunity to examine the authorities or hear argument on the jurisdictional issues. It nevertheless could not say that the proposed challenge was unarguable. Mr Menon was represented by leading counsel and the arguability threshold was relatively low. The general rule therefore applied without the court deciding whether the Crown Court’s contempt jurisdiction had become unavailable through delay or completion of the underlying trial.
3. General rule and appropriate course. A defendant or respondent who raises an arguable jurisdictional challenge is entitled to have it determined before being required to engage with the merits. Determining the challenge at the substantive hearing would require preparation on both jurisdiction and merits, could lead to an appeal before the merits were finally resolved, and would require one High Court judge sitting in the Crown Court to consider whether orders made by other High Court judges were jurisdictionally or otherwise defective. Determination by this court before the contempt hearing was the better course.
4. Order. Although no appeal could be listed before the scheduled hearing date, there was no urgency compelling the hearing to proceed despite those disadvantages. The court directed that a formal appeal against the refusal to vacate be lodged, allowed that appeal, and stayed the proceedings. The existing appeal was to be listed when ready, with an advocate to the court available to address the jurisdictional and procedural issues.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against the refusal to vacate the contempt hearing and ordered a stay. The existing jurisdictional and procedural appeal was to be listed when ready.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: Johnson J directed that summary contempt proceedings be instituted and that the incident be reported under rule 48.5(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Rules. Nicklin J subsequently directed that proceedings be instituted. Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb listed the hearing and later refused to vacate it.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The earlier judgment on 12 May 2026, [2026] EWCA Civ 573 , set out the history and left further steps to the trial judge. It did not decide whether it was by then too late to institute summary contempt proceedings.