Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA Ground 3 Submissions for Mr Husain 90. Mr Magennis for Mr Husain submitted that the Tribunal was wrong to rely on the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which has been widely criticised. In particular, the Tribunal used that definition as the basis for stating, in relation to certain tweets, that it is inherently antisemitic to refer to Israel as a fascist state or to compare it with historical examples of fascist states, including Nazi Germany. The Tribunal, however, applied this approach inconsistently, at one point accepting that a tweet which made the comparison was acceptable. The Tribunal reached irrational conclusions in relation to individual tweets. Given the Tribunal’s approach (to look at individual tweets and then reach an overall conclusion as to the cumulative position), errors in individual cases undermine its overall conclusion. 91. In addition, the Tribunal erred in admitting Mr Silverman’s evidence. There was no need for expert evidence on the issue of what constitutes antisemitism. Mr Silverman was not a true expert. He had a close connection to one of the parties, having provided training to the SRA (see by analogy EXP v Barker [2017] EWCA Civ 63, [2017] Med LR 121). He used the IHRA working definition without explaining how controversial it is, made baseless criticisms of third parties and had a previous link to SRA, to whom he had provided training. The Tribunal in any event attached too much weight to his evidence. Submissions for the SRA 92. Mr Solomon for the SRA submitted that there was no error of law in relying on the IHRA working definition. It is widely adopted, including by the UK Government and European Parliament. It has been widely used in the regulatory sphere, including by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, by the General Pharmaceutical Council (as shown by my decision in Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Pharmaceutical Council, Ali (Interested Party) [2024] EWHC 577 (Admin), [2024] IRLR 504). In any event, the Tribunal did not rely exclusively on the IHRA working definition. It considered several and ultimately formed its own conclusions. The Tribunal’s conclusions on particular tweets were not plainly wrong or irrational. Again, specific submissions are made about particular tweets. 93. The Tribunal properly admitted and weighed the expert’s evidence. He did in fact explain the controversy around the IHRA guidance, but in any event his evidence was for the Tribunal to assess. The connection between the expert and instructing party was known to the Tribunal, which referred to it. Overall, there was no error of law or approach. Discussion The IHRA working definition and examples 94. The IHRA is an inter-governmental organisation founded in 1998 by former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson to address issues related to the Holocaust and genocide of the Roma. It has 35 member countries (including the UK, the USA, Israel and most