Timeline of Nazim Ali case

Nazim Ali and Rabbi Beck leading the Al-Quds Day march in 2017, London, UK

Timeline of Nazim Ali case:

  • 18 June 2017 – al-Quds day – Nazim Ali leads the chants.
  • September 2017 – police pass case to CPS to decide whether or not to prosecute.
  • December 2017 – case passed to CPS local area based charging team – they also declined to proceed with 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.

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


  • 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.
  • June 2021 – High Court ruled in favour of the PSA, arguing that the GPhC fitness to practice committee was wrong to take into account Ali’s intention when determining whether or not his words were anti-Semitic. The judge ruled that the matter would be remitted to the GPhC fitness to practice committee to have a fresh hearing to decide whether Ali’s words were anti-Semitic, without taking his intention or explanation for his words in to account.