Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA 46. The Tribunal then went on to find, in relation to allegations 1.1 and 1.2, that there had been a breach of principle 5 (integrity) (see [27.38.17]-[27.38.19]), principle 2 (public trust) (see [27.38.20]-[27.38.20]) and principle 6 (encouraging equality, diversity and inclusion) (see [27.38.22]-[27.38.25]). 47. Allegation 1.3 was different, because that involved communications to the SRA’s investigating officer (“IO”). Examples included: “You are a Zionist apologist and fascist like ur organisation- look forward to the McCarthyite show trial”, “You and your silly little fascist organisation do not have my consent to contact my GP. You and your Zionist racist pals can go and play with Mr Myerson” and “Given the lack of engagement with the points I have raised above, I can only consider that IO who is a Sikh Punjabi is angry about comments made on Twitter by me about the Sikh national hero Ranjit Singh as a rapist of Muslim women. IO should have been excused from considering my case since she considers I am offensive to Indians and IO is very obviously an Indian.” See [27.39.2]. 48. The Tribunal noted that “[i]n correspondence between a solicitor and his regulator the observance of the formalities of business-like communication was required” and that the messages were “intrinsically and overtly offensive”. This was in breach of principles 5, 2 and 6: see [27.39]. 49. The Tribunal then turned to sanction. On the day of the hearing when this had been considered (23 February 2024), Mr Husain had sent in a note from his GP which included this: “Mr Husain feels unable to attend this hearing due to a decline in his mental health and I am concerned that attending this hearing could cause further deterioration. I would be grateful for your support in this matter”. He also filed written submissions to the effect that the Tribunal had been wrong to admit Dr Zaman’s report only as to reasonable adjustments and mitigation. He cited BSB v Howd [2017] EWHC 210 (Admin). The Tribunal noted that Mr Husain had made no application to adjourn the hearing and decided that it was appropriate to proceed in his absence. His position was not analogous to that of the barrister in Howd: see [27.40]. 50. As to sanction, the Tribunal noted that, as regards allegations 1.1 and 1.2, “the Respondent’s motivation appeared to shift from one of making potentially valid political points to being purely offensive and stooping to use racist and antisemitic language to underline his points of argument”: [49]. 51. As regards allegation 1.3, “his motivation appeared to be one of anger and outrage at being called to account by his regulator”: [50]. 52. Under each allegation, the misconduct arose from a conscious decision. There may have been “an element of spontaneity”, but “this conduct persisted over a number of months and the Respondent had had time to reflect and moderate his mode of expression”: [51]. While he may have been suffering from depression, this did not excuse his behaviour and there was no medical evidence that his condition was of such a nature or degree that he did not know what he was doing or had no control over his use of Twitter. There was no medical evidence to explain why his depression would have caused him to be antisemitic and use racist and inappropriate sexualised language: [52]-[53].