Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. 24. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA The tweets relied upon were set out in the SRA’s statement under rule 12(2) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 (“the Rules”). It is not necessary to reproduce all of them, because the Tribunal set out those it regarded as individually antisemitic and I have recorded both the tweets and the Tribunal’s conclusions about them later in the judgment. Many of the tweets complained of were posted in Twitter conversations involving the barrister Simon Myerson QC (now KC) and the journalist Hugo Rifkind, both of whom are Jewish. The hearing before the Tribunal 25. There was a case management hearing on 30 June 2023 at which directions were made. The parties were permitted to adduce expert reports on what might be considered antisemitic and as to the meaning of the appellant’s words. The SRA served an expert report from Stephen Silverman. The appellant did not rely on expert evidence on this issue. There was a discussion about whether reasonable adjustments might be necessary at the substantive hearing. The appellant was permitted to file and serve medical evidence on that issue by 21 August 2023. 26. The substantive hearing began on 18 September 2023 and continued over 13 days (1822 September 2023, 18-19 December 2023, 26 and 29 January 2023 and 6, 13, 20 and 23 February 2024). The appellant represented himself and was present throughout, except on the last day (before which he filed written submissions). The SRA was represented by counsel. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Myerson and expert evidence from Mr Silverman. The appellant provided a statement setting out an explanation for his tweets and a critique of the SRA’s position. 27. Shortly before the hearing, the appellant provided medical records including a 2013 diagnosis of recurrent depression and a doctor’s letter from 2022 stating that he had reported worsening depression and anxiety and that “due to his low mood and difficulties with anger management this had an impact on how he reacted to difficult situations”. 28. The appellant made a number of applications, including an application for the expert’s evidence to be struck out, and an application for the Chair to recuse himself. Both applications were refused.