Rachel Riley: TV presenter targeted by solicitor
A solicitor whose use of “emotive and antisemitic language” on social media appeared designed to cause “maximum offence” has been given a six-month suspended suspension.
The suspended nature of the sanction lasts a year and is conditional on Mohammed Sarfraz completing 10 hours of mandatory training on equality, diversity and inclusion, and four hours on antisemitism in that time.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said its decision reflected the “important distinction” between regulating political opinion and maintaining professional standards of conduct.
It explained: “This was not a case about stifling legitimate political debate, but rather about ensuring that a solicitor, who had voluntarily undertaken professional obligations in exchange for significant privileges and public trust conducted himself with appropriate judgment and dignity even in political discourse.”
Mr Sarfraz, a director at Bradford firm Cartwright Solicitors, admitted that 15 posts on Facebook and X between November 2019 and January 2022 were variously antisemitic and offensive.
The SDT said his posts exhibited “systematic patterns of antisemitic content, including accusations of disloyalty against prominent British Jews, conspiracy theories about Jewish financial influence, religious defamation (claiming ‘Jews did whack Jesus’), and broader conspiracy theories about Jewish control of the media and involvement in 9/11”.
The posts also targeted specific individuals, including the Chief Rabbi, TV presenter Rachel Riley, and politicians, “often using crude and seriously offensive language”.
“[Mr Sarfraz] apologised unreservedly for posting them and extended this apology to include some of his more ambiguous posts, which he accepted could be interpreted as antisemitic, particularly when viewed in the context of his more obviously antisemitic ones. He apologised for any upset caused and expressed regret to anyone he may have offended.”
However, Mr Sarfraz denied any breach in relation to six posts and the SDT found only one of them to be antisemitic. This was targeted at former Conservative cabinet minister Sajid Javid for supporting Israel and said: “How many shekels was it you bald c###”.
The SDT said this reflected antisemitic tropes of Jewish organisations and Israel corrupting British institutions, including politicians.
Four of the other contentious tweets were found to be offensive but the tribunal cleared one that criticised the pro-Israel stance of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
This was Mr Sarfraz engaging in “political debate and a legitimate exercise of his article 10 rights by criticising an established British institution which had garnered criticism from other quarters”.
He told the SDT that he held anti-Zionist philosophical beliefs and was opposed to the current Israeli government, “as distinct from its citizens”. He argued that his posts were motivated by his political beliefs and anger at ‘the establishment’ for undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign, which he believed was influenced by pro-Israel interests.
In reaching its decision, the SDT said it followed the guidance of the recent High Court ruling in Husain. Mr Justice Chamberlain upheld the decision to strike off a solicitor over antisemitic tweets on Israel and Palestine.
The SDT here said Mr Sarfraz’s defence rested primarily on his claim to have been “caught up in the moment” and angry about matters relating to Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party leadership.
He also maintained that his comments were attempts at humour or irony intended to contribute to legitimate public debate rather than expressions of genuine hostility.
The SDT found “a striking contradiction between the articulate, measured professional who appeared before it, and the author of the offensive social media posts”.
The language of posts containing phrases such as “go fuck yourself” could not be dismissed as accidental or unintentional. His “deliberate use of emotive and antisemitic language in a public setting appeared designed not to further legitimate debate, but specifically to cause maximum offence”.
It went on: “Particularly telling was the respondent’s own acknowledgment during evidence: ‘I accept that I was in breach of my professional obligations, having regard to the context of my more openly antisemitic posts.’
“The phrase ‘more openly antisemitic’ was especially significant, indicating recognition that his conduct had been intentionally problematic and hostile.”
It decided that his conduct breached the SRA principles covering integrity, upholding public trust and equality, diversity and inclusion.
Mr Sarfraz remained “entirely free to express his political views”, including robust criticism of Israeli policy or support for Palestinian rights. “However, as a solicitor, he was required to do so without descending into seriously offensive language or conduct that demonstrated lack of professional judgment.”
This was shown by the post that the SDT decided was not offensive.
In mitigation, the tribunal noted Mr Sarfraz’s unblemished record. It considered “his admissions, his embarrassment and his apologies to be genuine”, and took into account the steps he had taken at ‘remediation’.
He had described “a journey of self-reflection which commenced prior to the hearing, involving conversations with Jewish parents from his child’s school and academics Alana Lentin and Rachel Shapiro”, as well as reading a book on antisemitism.
The SDT said that “although he was on the road to achieving insight, there was more work to be done in this regard”.
On sanction, the SDT said a strike-off would be disproportionate. It gave “earnest thought” to an immediate suspension but decided that a suspended suspension represented the most appropriate sanction in the circumstances.
Mr Sarfraz was also ordered to pay costs of £63,000.
Leave a Comment