The Weekly Round Up: Migration and the ECHR, Government Response to Antisemitism, and Barrister’s Successful Appeal in Contempt Proceedings
19 May 2026
In the news
Council of Europe adopts political declaration on migration
All 46 member states of the Council of Europe have adopted the Chișinău Declaration on migration and the ECHR.
The declaration reaffirms the signatories’ commitment to the ECHR, while stressing the need for member states to be able to tackle “significant, complex, migration-related challenges … which were either unforeseen at the time the Convention was drafted or have evolved significantly since then”.
The declaration states that it is “an obligation and a necessity” for member states to protect their borders in compliance with the ECHR. A desire is expressed for further guidance from the ECtHR on a number of points, including the use of Article 3 to avoid expulsion or extradition.
The “living instrument” doctrine is pointedly highlighted twice, with emphasis on the ECtHR’s practice of interpreting the Convention in view of “present-day realities” and “novel challenges”.
The declaration also asserts that member states must be allowed to adopt new approaches to address irregular migration. Particular mention is made of the fact that several member states are currently envisaging the use of third countries as processing and return hubs.
Written ministerial statement on responding to antisemitism
In the wake of the Golders Green attack, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has issued a statement setting out the Government’s strategy on tackling antisemitism in the UK.
The statement refers to the Government’s recent command paper on improving social cohesion (published in March 2026) and announces additional measures, stating that “we all need to do more”.
The statement also commits the Government to fast-tracking legislation to introduce “new proscription-like powers to clamp down on individuals and groups carrying out hostile activity for foreign states”.
In the courts
Barrister contempt proceedings dismissed
The Court of Appeal has held that the Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to refer an alleged contempt of court directly to the High Court. Accordingly, the court dismissed High Court proceedings against the barrister Rajiv Menon KC, leaving the matter back in the hands of the Crown Court judge. The case is Re Contempt Proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Civ 573.
In January 2026, Mr Menon was held by a Crown Court judge to have breached, in his closing speech to the jury, the terms of a directions ruling which prohibited counsel from inviting the jury to disregard the court’s rulings of law, to disregard their juror oaths, or to apply the principle of jury equity. The judge then referred the matter to the High Court for consideration.
According to a statement by Mr Menon’s chambers, this was the first time in English legal history that a barrister had been prosecuted for contempt in respect of a closing speech at a criminal trial. The Chair of the Bar Council, Kirsty Brimelow KC, has also referred to the proceedings as “exceptional” and “troubling” and highlighted the risk of a chilling effect on the profession.
On Mr Menon’s appeal against a preliminary directions ruling, the Court of Appeal accepted the submission that the Crown Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making a direct reference to the High Court. The High Court would only have jurisdiction to deal with the case on an application by the Attorney-General ([62]).
In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeal followed “the overwhelming weight of authority”, which indicated that the Crown Court has only two options when confronted with an alleged contempt in the face of the court ([55]). These are: (a) it can deal with the matter itself in summary proceedings; or (b) it can make a reference to the A-G, who may make an application to the High Court if doing so would serve the public interest.
The court’s conclusion affirms the A-G’s role as a necessary filter in the majority of contempt cases. This is consistent with the guidance given in the leading case of Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73, which is that the Crown Court judge should leave the matter to the A-G’s discretion unless it is imperative to act immediately ([57]).
