A tribunal rules a pro-Hezbollah post was not seriously offensive given the debate at the time, while Hong Kong's Bar Association challenges a separate clearance.
A disciplinary tribunal has cleared barrister Ousman Noor of misconduct over a June 2024 post on X supporting Hezbollah, a proscribed terrorist group. Legal Futures reported the decision as "finely balanced". The tribunal said the post did not cross the threshold of being "seriously offensive" given the international debate at the time around the Israel Defence Forces' actions.
The post read: "Hezbollah is justified, both legally and morally, to use military force to destroy the IDF and I wish them every success." It was viewed more than three-quarters of a million times. About 14 and a half hours later Mr Noor published a longer post saying his support was for the specific act of targeting and destroying the IDF and should not be equated with support for Hezbollah as an entity.
The tribunal, chaired by Zoe O'Sullivan KC, found that the "hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader" would read the tweet as expressing support for Hezbollah, and not simply for its aims or outcomes. It nonetheless cleared him.
The Bar Standards Board accepted that expressing an opinion that Hezbollah had a legal right to use military force against the IDF would not be seriously offensive. It argued that the reference to moral justification, together with the expression of support, took the post over the threshold. In evidence, Mr Noor retracted a suggestion in an earlier statement that the BSB was acting as "an enforcer of Zionist demands". He said he no longer held the view that military action by Hezbollah or anyone else was the answer.
Separately, in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Bar Association told the High Court on Monday that the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal erred in clearing barrister and former lawmaker Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee of professional misconduct. The complaint related to her conviction for taking part in an unlawful assembly in 2019. Benjamin Yu Yuk-hoi SC said the association's council had applied for judicial review to seek clarification of its code of conduct. The association argues the panel overlooked the likelihood of her action bringing the legal profession into disrepute.
