Impartiality questions have been raised over “Israeli terrorist” post-‘liking’ UK judge who sentenced people for “racist” private WhatsApp messages but let off terror-convicted Palestine march protesters.
A former Home Secretary, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, and the Jewish Leadership Council have called for the decision not to punish three women convicted under terror laws for wearing or carrying images of paragliders at a Palestine demonstration in London to be reviewed. Alleged social media activity by the presiding judge has led to accusations of “bias”, reports the Jerusalem Post, and demands for the case to be examined by the court of appeal.
Judge Tan Ikram convicted three women under the Terrorism Act 2000, but in sentencing remarks told Heba Alhayek, Pauline Ankunda, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo they’d already learned their lesson and consequently needed no punishment. He gave them conditional discharges, which meant as long as they committed no further crimes for another 12 months, they would face no punishment and would not get a criminal record.
Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram’s social media activity suggests to us that there may be grounds to set aside his ruling in the case in which he decided “not to punish” three women found guilty of terrorism offences, on the basis of actual or apparent bias.
We are sharing… https://t.co/dlocy3EiPe pic.twitter.com/G4YsjeZ9th
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) February 14, 2024
He told the trio:
Each of you stands convicted of a terrorist offence. There is nothing to suggest the police of their own volition were going to take any action. You’ve not hidden the fact you were carrying these images. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue.
Your lesson has been well learnt. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas.
Brexiteer turned broadcaster Nigel Farage characterised the decision of the judge to let off the women as him having “effectively overruled the jury” by deciding to make no punishment when they had been found guily.
But internet sleuths soon found, as subsequently also asserted by newspapers including The Times, that Deputy Senior District Judge Ikram ‘liked’ a post on the profession-focussed social media site Linkedin on the Gaza conflict, leading to claims of conflicted interest.
It is unknown whether Judge Ikram ‘liked’ the post deliberately but no denial has yet been made. Created by a barrister who is said to have written other Israel conspiracy posts, the message in question read: “Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United Kingdom, the United States, and of course Israel you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide – justice will be coming for you.”
Under guidance issued in the UK, judges are told to recuse themselves from cases if they have strong views on matters being tried. If the judge were found to have ignored this guidance, he could face disciplinary action, reports The Daily Telegraph.
Further claims suggest that Judge Ikram’s approach to sentencing isn’t informed by a blanket opposition to punishment. The Times notes he presided over a case lasy year of former police officers sending each other private messages on the WhatsApp service. Although these closed-group messages could not be seen by the public, they were nevertheless found to be “grossly offensive” and “racist”, and the six men — all of whom were long retired by the time the messages were sent — were sentenced by Ikram.
The men were given criminal records and ordered to perform community sentence.
Former UK Home Secretary (Interior Minister) Suella Braverman, who has taken a strong position on combatting antisemitism, is among the most senior political figures to challenge the decision to not hand down a sentence to the Palestine march trio. She said on Thursday: “Utterly shocking that a member of the judiciary may have behaved in this way.
“With anti-semitism at an all-time high, judges must be impartial and beyond reproach. Justice must be done and it must also be seen to be done. The sentence must be reviewed.”
The Campaign Against Antisemitism also called for an appeal against the case. Their statement said, per JPost, that it was right the trio were convicted under UK terror law for showing terror symbols in public, but that it is “inexplicable” that Ikram let them off without punishment.
They said: “The court has thereby sent the worst possible signal to the Jewish community at a time of surging antisemitism and glorification of terror, and we fully expect the CPS to now bring an appeal against this unduly lenient sentence.”
The Jewish Leadership Council said the trip had got off “scot-free” and their spokesman said: “In the aftermath of the barbaric Hamas terror attack, it was clear what those images meant. The woefully inadequate sentence and accompanying remarks from the judge were extremely surprising.
“It is deeply worrying, and revealing, that this judge could have considered it right to hear the case himself given his previous public stance on this issue. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office should immediately investigate.”
The Prime Minister’s office at Downing Street said they had already referred the case to the Attorney General, who has powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal in the event of “unduly lenient” sentences. A spokesman said the case was “deeply troubling”, and that: “Serious questions are being raised in government on how a judge posting this online was able to preside over this landmark case and what this means for the sentencing decision.”
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.