On 6 April 2026, Dr Ranjeet Brar, director of Right to Protest Limited, was suspended by his employer, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, for his statement made against Israel, the US and British government’s illegal war and genocide, during his speech at a memorial event for 186 primary schoolchildren murdered in a ‘double tap’ strike on a school in Minab, Iran.  Dr Brar believes that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism was used against him to effect his suspension, by his employer, 

Prior to contacting Dr Brar for any interview, comment or ascertaining the facts of the case, Clive Kay, the chief executive of King’s College Hospital NHS trust, made a statement which was reproduced by UKLFI and printed in the press, accusing Dr Brar of racism. Clearly, the effect of this statement was supposed to deliver judgement without even the semblance of ‘due process’, and is just one part of an ongoing campaign to ‘chill’ free speech and impinge upon the legitimate human rights of the pro-Palestine, anti-genocide majority of British workers. It is sinister to note that this case was targeted at precisely the party known to be challenging the legality of the IHRA framework.

Hussain Shafiei, the second claimant, joins the challenge on the basis that the application of the IHRA definition has a broader impact on public discourse. He contends that its use discourages open discussion of matters of public concern and contributes to a chilling effect on freedom of expression and discrimination, particularly against certain communities. This raises wider concerns about participation in public debate, equal treatment, and the effective exercise of Convention rights.

Why this challenge matters

We are bringing a judicial review to challenge how the non-statutory IHRA definition of antisemitism has been adopted and applied within the NHS and other public bodies. This challenge raises issues of constitutional importance, including freedom of expression, procedural fairness, equality and non-discrimination, and the proper limits of relying on non-statutory guidance in public decision-making.

It is argued that the IHRA definition has already resulted in the restriction of lawful expression and created widespread fear among healthcare professionals, patients, and academics who speak critically about Israel or express solidarity with Palestinians. The definition is increasingly relied upon in ways that blur the boundary between legitimate political expression and professional misconduct, creating uncertainty and a chilling effect on lawful debate—particularly on matters relating to Palestine, including criticism of state conduct.

The Government adopted the IHRA definition without a process comparable to that used for defining anti-Muslim Hostility definition, raising arguable issues of fairness and consistency. This difference in approach may lead to unequal restrictions on lawful speech, engaging Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read alongside Article 10.

In practice, workers including medical staff and allied health workers who raise ethical concerns about Israel’s actions are increasingly treated as potential offenders rather than professionals acting in good faith. Criticism of a state is being mischaracterised as hate, placing careers, reputations, and well-being at risk. 

Palestinians—and those speaking about life under an illegal occupation—are being pushed to the margins. Palestinian culture, identity, and lived experience risk being reduced to something controversial or dangerous, simply because people are afraid to speak openly. This silencing erases human experience, undermines compassionate care, and offends against the majority democratic opinion in British society, which has consistently opposed Israel’s actions in Palestine.

Regulators and public bodies are increasingly relying on the non-statutory IHRA definition to restrict lawful speech, despite repeated warnings that it is not a legal test and should not be used to police expression. This has led to censorship, disciplinary threats, and a growing culture of silence across public institutions.

This legal challenge defends freedom of expression, professional integrity, and the right to speak without fear. It seeks to ensure that public bodies including the NHS remains a space guided by ethics, evidence, and humanity—not political pressure or intimidation. 

Next Steps 

Farani Taylor Solicitors has been instructed to bring a judicial review claim on behalf of Dr Ranjeet Brar and Right to Protest Limited. Farani Taylor Solicitors is a full-service London firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, with a wealth of experience in public law, civil liberties and judicial review. 

The firm acts for individuals and organisations challenging the decisions of public bodies in matters that engage fundamental rights, and is well placed to bring a case of this constitutional importance.

Our next step is to issue the fresh judicial review claim and ask the court for permission to take it to a full hearing. 

We are seeking donations to cover the legal costs of this judicial review challenge. Every pound goes directly to the legal costs of bringing this case:

•         Solicitors’ fees at Farani Taylor Solicitors.

•         Counsel’s fees 

•         Court fees and disbursements at the Administrative Court.

What this case aims to achieve

This challenge seeks to clarify the lawful application of the IHRA definition, to protect the right to lawful political expression, and to ensure that public bodies act fairly, proportionately, and consistently when relying on non‑statutory guidance.

 How you can help

Help us to take this urgent legal action against Dr Brar’s employer and other public authorities by donating to the legal costs of our judicial review. 

Whatever you can give, however small, makes a real difference. Thank you for standing with us. Please donate, please share this page with anyone who cares about free speech and the right to speak – against genocide, against war, against the racist, undemocratic and illegal policy of our government – without fear. Please follow our updates as the case develops.

Justice depends on the courage to speak. Help us defend that right.