Timeline of Nazim Ali case:

• 18 June 2017 – al-Quds day – Nazim Ali leads the chants.

• June 2017 – complaint made to police about comments made by Nazim Ali.

• September 2017 – police pass case to CPS to decide whether or not to prosecute.

• December 2017 – CPS decided not to proceed with prosecution.

• December 2017 – case passed to CPS local area based charging team – they also declined to proceed with prosecution.

• December 2017 – Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) start a private prosecution against Nazim Ali.

• June 2018 – CPS took over and ended private prosecution as it was not in the public interest.

• July 2018 – CAA start judicial review proceedings against the CPS for their decision to discontinue the private prosecution.

• December 2018 – High Court held the CPS were entitled to make this decision and rules against CAA. They also state CPS were entitled to consider Nazim Ali’s words in their proper context in order to reach their conclusion. The court recognised his words were anti-Zionist given the context they were spoken.

• December 2018 – the complaint then moves to the GPhC (the complaint was made at the same time as the complaint to the police but was put on hold until the private prosecution was over). GPhC case worker decided his actions were not racist and closed the case. Nazim Ali informed by telephone of this in December 2018. The caseworker’s decision was reviewed/approved by two professional regulations managers (who were independent of the investigation) and a regional manager.

• July 2019 – GPhC Registrar decides he would still refer Nazim’s case to the fitness to practice committee.

• November 2020 – fitness to practice committee  decide Nazim Ali was not antisemitic but his words were offensive and sanctioned him for that.

https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/determinations/ali_nazim_2041615_principal_hearing_05-11-2020.pdf /

https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/search/search_decisions

• December 2020 – Pro Israel organisation complain to the PSA, who decide to refer the GPhC decision to the High Court. The GPhC concurred with the PSA and decide to abandon the decision of their own tribunal. The PSA argue the GPhC fitness to practice committee was wrong to take into account the context of the speech (the pro-Palestine event) or the intention behind the words. Instead, they argue that when looked at on their own, without context and intention, Nazim Ali’s words are in fact anti-Semitic.

• In June 2021 the High Court referred the case back to the GPhC FtP and asked them to consider Ali’s words without talking into account his intention or character.

• In August 2023 the GPhC FtP reconvened and reheard Ali’s case. They decided two of his statements were “objectively” antisemitic, when his words were considered without taking into account what he actually intended to say. They however accepted that his comments were not intended to be anti-Semitic, that he had not embarked upon a “deliberate diatribe of hatred”, the comments were “not indicative of an underlying attitudinal failing” and were made in the heat of a highly charged gathering where pro-Israel activists were referring to Muslims as paedophiles and terrorists. It issued Mr Ali with a warning. They issued a warning because Nazim had apologised, had not repeated the words or conduct and this was sufficient in this case to safeguard the public.

• In September 2023, the PSA decided to refer the case to the High Court again, demanding a tougher sanction. It is interesting to note, the referral to the High Court was made despite the fact that the PSA had not actually considered the GPhC decision against Ali prior to making the referral through its s29 mechanism. This was finally done in November 2023, after having decided to make the referral to the High Court. A further point of note is the fact that the conflict between Hamas and Palestine was at its height at the time the decision was taken to make the referral.