He committed at least two offences. There's the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, and he also committed the offence of inciting hatred against an identifiable group likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
I heard the position was taken that he was expressing a view on a religious subject. That's nonsense. The defence would not be available to him. It wasn't made in good faith, and it was simply the wilful promotion of hatred. It was no defence that he also used the term “Zionist” as opposed to “Jews”. He was using it as a proxy for “Jews”, and frankly, it was a profound and disturbing call for the extermination of Jews and should have been treated as such by the police.