Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA within rule 30(3) of the Rules. I do not consider that it was wrong in principle or outside the limits of its discretion for it to reach that view. 116. I turn now to the criticisms directed at Mr Silverman himself. I reject the submission that he was disqualified from acting as an expert by the lack of any relevant academic qualifications. Such qualifications are not a condition for the admissibility of expert evidence. Nor did the fact that Mr Silverman had previously provided training to the SRA make it inappropriate in principle for him to give expert evidence. That connection was known to the tribunal (though initially the SRA said, mistakenly, that the training had taken place only after Mr Silverman had submitted his expert report in this case to the SRA). But it did not logically supply any reason why he would be incentivised to reach any particular view on the issues he had been asked to consider. Unlike in EXP v Barker, he was not being asked to provide evidence in support of an already crystallised dispute between two parties. His function had been to say whether the tweets were antisemitic so as to inform the SRA’s charging decision. The latter decision was avowedly based on his report. 117. As I have noted, the Tribunal did not accept Mr Silverman’s evidence in its entirety. Nonetheless, in my judgment, it should have approached his evidence with greater circumspection than it did. He was, at the time of the hearing, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at the Campaign for Antisemitism. Some examples of the CAA’s recent public comments were recorded at [26.16.17] and [26.16.27]. The section of Mr Silverman’s report entitled “Problematic organisations and individuals” should also have flagged to the Tribunal that the expert before them was an active participant in, rather than just a commentator on, a highly polarised political debate. In my view, these matters were relevant to the extent to which his evidence could be regarded as “objective unbiased opinion on matters within his expertise”: see The Ikarian Reefer [1993] FSR 563, 565. Were the Tribunal’s conclusions open to it? 118. So far, I have confined myself to general comments on the IHRA working definition and examples and on Mr Silverman’s report and evidence. I now turn to examine the way in which, in the light of these, the Tribunal dealt with the allegations against Mr Husain, bearing clearly in mind the limits of the appellate function. 119. As to allegation 1.1, the Tribunal’s general conclusion at [17.38.2] that a number of tweets individually and collectively demonstrated a hatred or prejudice towards Jews was not only open to it but also, in my judgment, clearly correct. 120. When on 3 May 2021 Mr Husain tweeted that “No Muslim should buy The Times, it is a bigoted pager with numerous Zionists working for it like David Aaronovich, Daniel Finkelstein etc.”, he singled out two prominent Jewish journalists. There was no reason to mention these individuals other than they are well known to have Jewish ancestry. There were many other journalists writing for The Times who had also expressed views which could be described as “Zionist” using Mr Husain’s very broad understanding of that word as encompassing anyone who supported the existence of the State of Israel. They were not singled out. On 23 May 2021, Mr Husain referred to the same two individuals and added a third “Zionist… idiot”: Hugo Rifkind, another prominent and well-known Jewish journalist. In context, the word “Zionist” being used as a code word