Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA Mr Justice Chamberlain: Introduction 1. Farrukh Husain was admitted as a solicitor in 2014. He became active on the social media site then known as Twitter, using an account with a profile which identified him as a lawyer. In several tweets, he identified himself as an employment solicitor. In May 2021, the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority (“SRA”) received a complaint and reviewed his Twitter feed. It started an investigation and later brought disciplinary proceedings in respect of tweets which it said were offensive and in some cases antisemitic, and about comments made in correspondence with the SRA, which it said were offensive. 2. The proceedings were heard by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) over 12 days. Mr Husain accepted that he was the author of the tweets but said that he should not be disciplined for posting them in a personal capacity, denied that they were antisemitic and apologised if they had caused offence. In a comprehensive judgment handed down on 28 March 2024, the Tribunal found the allegations proven and ordered that Mr Husain be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. 3. Mr Husain now appeals to this court pursuant to s. 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (“the 1974 Act”). Initially, he represented himself and advanced 16 grounds of appeal, supported by a skeleton argument. He then filed a revised skeleton argument signed by counsel, Franck Magennis, which advanced four “consolidated” grounds of appeal: 4. (a) There was medical evidence that Mr Husain suffered from a condition amounting to a disability, which caused the conduct complained of. The Tribunal wrongly regarded this evidence as irrelevant when considering liability and gave insufficient weight to it when considering sanction (“Ground 1”). (b) The tweets were political speech which attracted the highest level of protection. The Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal test in this regard (“Ground 2”). (c) The Tribunal erred in relying on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism (“the IHRA working definition”), which was “flawed” and “partisan”. It also relied heavily on expert evidence from a member of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which is a “biased, widely discredited and openly Zionist organisation”. To the extent that it relied on other definitions of antisemitism, the Tribunal’s reasoning was inadequate and it consistently conflated anti-Zionism with antisemitism without any proper evidential basis (“Ground 3”). (d) The sanction of striking off was manifestly excessive and disproportionate and departed from guidance and sanctions in other cases (“Ground 4”). The hearing before me took place on 11 March 2025. Mr Magennis appeared for Mr Husain. Adam Solomon KC appeared for the SRA. I permitted them to file notes after the hearing on specific points which had arisen at the hearing. Mr Magennis did so on 13 and 16 March 2025. Mr Solomon did so on 20 March 2025.