Solicitor loses High Court appeal after being struck off in case where CAA provided expert opinion

Farrukh Najeeb Husain, a solicitor who was struck off by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) last year, has lost his appeal at the High Court.

In the appeal, Mr Husain was represented by Franck Magennis, who was instructed by niche UK-Qatari law firm Five Pillars Law.

Campaign Against Antisemitism recently reported Mr Magennis to the Bar Standards Board for knowingly or recklessly presenting to the Home Secretary, on behalf of Hamas, a false and misleading description of the 7th October 2023 massacre.

The case was originally brought by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) against Mr Husain. Following the hearing, the SDT found a number of his social media posts to be antisemitic and offensive.

The SRA investigated Mr Husain, an immigration and employment solicitor, following complaints regarding his conduct on X, which was reported to the regulator by Bevan Brittan, a law firm that employed him at the time.

The SRA claimed that Mr Husain’s conduct online was “offensive” and, in some cases, antisemitic. Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, gave expert witness testimony to assist the SRA in its case.

Mr Husain represented himself over the course of the hearings, which began in September 2023.

The posts in question were directed at Simon Myerson KC, a barrister, and Hugo Rifkind, a journalist. Among the posts were characterisations of Mr Rifkind as a “Zionist pig”, references to Mr Rifkind’s “eastern European kin” and the claim that Mr Myerson “wreaks of white privilege”.

Throughout the case, Mr Husain made several accusations against the SRA and Capsticks, a law firm that was representing the SRA at the tribunal. He claimed that the SRA was “weaponising new antisemitism” and subverting the International Definition of Antisemitism, and even accused the regulator of being “in bed” with Campaign Against Antisemitism. He also claimed that the solicitor acting on behalf of the SRA was an “imperialist” and asserted that she “bang[ed] on about the Holocaust because [she] wants to hide [her] country’s own crimes,” apparently referring to her British heritage.

During her cross-examination of Mr Husain, he said: “Mr Myerson is a fascist.”

Mr Husain extended his accusations towards Mr Silverman too during cross-examination and said: “It is you who are engaging in the antisemitic trope that there is a collection of Jews who are self-haters, who have turned against their nation and who are spouting conspiracy theories.”

Mr Silverman then asked the defendant if he was calling him an antisemite, to which Mr Husain responded: “Yes.”

Mr Husain also baselessly accused Campaign Against Antisemitism of being set up and funded by a former Israeli diplomat.

Throughout the proceedings, Mr Husain was repeatedly reminded by the chairperson to conduct himself in an appropriate manner. In one instance, the tribunal panel addressed the defendant directly and accused him of “bordering on being abusive to Mr Silverman at times.”

Mr Husain appealed the decision of the SDT to the High Court, where he was represented by barrister Franck Magennis, on the instruction of UK-Qatari law firm Five Pillars Law.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled that in addition to Mr Husain’s hostility on the basis of race or religion, “there was clearly a bullying element and puerile and crude sexual references.” He found no fault with the SDT for finding that Mr Husain showed “no contrition” and that he had been unduly combative during the proceedings.

Concluding, Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled: “In my judgment, the Tribunal explained adequately why it had concluded that no lesser sanction than striking off would suffice. In essence, it was because, having considered all the evidence and formed clear impressions about Mr Husain’s motivations at the time of the misconduct and his attitude at the time of the hearing, it was not satisfied that a lesser sanction would protect the public from a repetition of his behaviour.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “The High Court has made the right decision. Farrukh Najeeb Husain’s posts were vile, there was no evidence of remorse for his actions, and in the words of Mr Justice Chamberlain, ‘No lesser sanction than striking off would suffice.’ The SRA is vindicated in its decision to bring this case in the first place to restore confidence in the legal profession, and we were pleased to be able to contribute expert evidence at the initial hearing in order to inform the tribunal. There must be zero tolerance for bigotry in the legal profession.”