Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA 29. On 16 December 2023 (nearly three months after the start of the hearing), Mr Husain applied to rely on a psychiatric report dated 12 December 2023. The report confirmed that the appellant had suffered from episodes of recurrent depression since 1998 with periods of input from his community mental health team, and was currently awaiting psychiatric review by that team. The psychiatrist’s opinion was that: (i) the appellant had moderate to severe depression; (ii) he was currently suffering from the effects of the stress of ongoing tribunal proceedings which would limit his capacity at times to fulfil and appropriately communicate his thoughts and (iii) at the time of the tweets he had a relapse of depression “during which his symptoms and levels of agitation and irritability increased, making him more liable to escalations in confrontation with those around him. On balance the relapse of his depression is likely to have led to him acting without his normal due measure and control”; and (iv) reasonable adjustments should be made, holding hearing days a week apart, and with regular breaks. 30. The Tribunal admitted the psychiatric evidence for the purpose of informing the adjustments necessary to facilitate the appellant’s participation and as relevant to mitigation, but refused to admit it on the issue of liability, largely on the basis that it was served some four months late and to admit it for that purpose would be unfair to the SRA. The Tribunal’s judgment 31. At [19.21]-[19.27], the Tribunal set out (over 10 pages) the tweets complained of, the SRA’s position on them and Mr Husain’s responses. At [20]-[22] it summarised the evidence of Mr Myerson and Mr Silverman. At [23]-[25], it recorded a number of applications made by Mr Husain and its reasons for refusing them: (i) to strike out Mr Silverman’s evidence; (ii) for the Chair to recuse himself; (iii) that permission should be given for certain individuals and organisations Mr Silverman had mentioned in evidence to reply to his comments; (iv) that the Tribunal and SRA should apologise to him for turning the hearing into a “charade”; (v) to recall Mr Silverman for further cross-examination; (vi) for leave to seek expert evidence and representation funded by the SRA. At [26], it set out (over some 32 pages): Mr Husain’s case, both in general and in relation to the specific tweets relied on against him; some further points he had raised about the SRA’s representative misleading the Tribunal and his asserted right to have the proceedings dismissed under the Equality Act 2010; and the Tribunal’s decisions on these points (which was to reject them). 32. The Tribunal held that it was no part of its function to make any finding upon the rights and wrongs of the underlying conflict, nor to prevent or hinder an individual’s right to act according to their conscience and deeply held views. Its function was limited to determining whether there had been any breach of the SRA Principles and Rules: see [27.1]-[27.5]. 33. The Tribunal referred to Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and directed itself that the civil balance of proof applied: [27.6]-[27.7]. 34. The Tribunal noted the terms of Article 10 ECHR and referred to the decision of the court of Appeal in Adil v GMC [2023] EWCA Civ 1261, [2024] ICR 445. At [27.11], the Tribunal held that its task was: