Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA cannot say that this conclusion was wrong in the sense of being “clearly inappropriate” or “outside the bounds of what the Tribunal could properly and reasonably decide”. 142. It will rarely be persuasive in an appeal of this kind to set out a list of sanctions imposed in other cases. Such cases turn on their own facts and have their own contexts. Insofar as reliance was placed on decisions of the High Court, it may be noted that in Ali (where a warning was upheld as a proper sanction) the misconduct involved antisemitic comments made on one occasion, there was a full and sincere apology and there had been no repetition in the seven years between the date when the comments were made and the date of the appeal in the High Court. In Diggins, the penalty related to a single tweet and the only question for Warby J was whether a fine was manifestly excessive (he held not). In Lambert-Simpson v Health Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 481 (Admin), there were three tweets and the only issue before the judge was whether a four-month suspension was too harsh (Fordham J held not). Conclusion 143. For these reasons, Mr Husain’s appeal is dismissed.