This article is publicly accessible, after being checked by a member of staff.
Judge accused of bias after liking ‘Free Palestine’ social media post
Earlier, the senior judge did not jail three protesters who displayed paraglider images at a rally held a week after Hamas militants stormed into Israel.
Pro-Palestinian marches have regularly occurred in London since the beginning Israel-Hamas war.
SHARE:
A judge who “decided not to punish” three protesters at a pro-Palestinian protest has come under fire after appearing to support a social media post calling for a “free Palestine”.
The three protesters, 29-year-old Heba Alhayek, 26-year-old Pauline Ankunda, and 27-year-old Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, were found guilty of a terror offence on Tuesday, for displaying paraglider images at a pro-Palestinian march in central London in October 2023.
The protest was held a week after Hamas militants had launched a surprise assault from Gaza into Israel on 7 October, before killing more than 1,000 people.
Some of the attackers used paragliders to get over Israeli defences and get into the country.
Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram spared them any jail time, handed each woman a 12-month conditional discharge, and told them:
“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”.
Since the verdict, a screenshot has surfaced which shows him liking a post, reading: “Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist (sic) 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.”
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), which claimed Judge Ikram had liked a post, alleged the activity suggested possible bias.
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.
A spokesperson for the CAA said the judge’s actions provided “grounds to set his ruling aside” in the terror offence case.
But the judge said he “didn’t know he had liked the post” and “if he did, it was a genuine mistake”, according to the Judicial Press Office on his behalf.
City News has not been able to independently verify the post being liked by the judge’s account, and the PA news agency said the LinkedIn profile appears to have been removed from the platform.
The allegations of bias have prompted significant backlash.
Former home secretary and attorney general Suella Braverman said it was “utterly shocking that a member of the judiciary may have behaved in this way,” adding that the sentence passed on the three women must be reviewed.
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.
Downing Street said it had referred the case to the Attorney General.
A source told the PA news agency: “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. It’s deeply troubling.”
The Attorney General’s Office is understood to have received several referrals arguing the sentence was unduly lenient.
But a spokeswoman said the sentence was not eligible to be reviewed because it was not handed down in a crown court, which deals with the most serious criminal cases.
The Judicial Press Office said it does not comment on whether complaints regarding judicial conduct had been received, or the status of the complaints.
Outcomes of investigations are published by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
Submitted Article
HeadlineCalls to discipline Judge over Palestinian sympathy
Short HeadlineCalls for discipline as Judge accused of bias
StandfirstThe senior judge has also been accused of liking a pro-Palestinian social media post after sparing three women guilty of a terror offence from jail time.
Published Article
HeadlineJudge accused of bias after liking ‘Free Palestine’ social media post
Short HeadlineJudge accused of bias after liking 'Free Palestine' post
StandfirstEarlier, the senior judge did not jail three protesters who displayed paraglider images at a rally held a week after Hamas militants stormed into Israel.
A judge has been accused of bias in a ruling against three women arrested for showing support for Hamas at a London Palestinian protest.
Tan Ikram, Deputy Senior District Judge, appeared to ‘like’ a LinkedIn post that displayed the ‘Free Palestine’ slogan after he “decided not to punish” Palestinian protestors who displayed paraglider images at a protest.
A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said that Mr Ikram’s actions provided “grounds to set his ruling aside” in the terror offence case.
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.
Heba Alhayek, 29; Pauline Ankunda, 26; and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27; were found guilty of a terror offence in the wake of the incident at a pro-Palestinian march in central London a week after Hamas militants entered Israel.
In the case, Judge Ikram said to the defendants, “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”.
However, since the verdict, a screenshot has surfaced which shows Tan Ikram liking a post from Sham Uddin, which 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.”
But the judge said he “didn’t know he had liked the post” and “if he did, it was a genuine mistake”, according to the Judicial Press Office on his behalf.
The allegations of bias have prompted significant backlash.
Suella Braverman, the former home secretary posted on X: “Utterly shocking that a member of the judiciary may have behaved in this way.”
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 Judicial Press Office said it does not comment on whether complaints regarding judicial conduct had been received, or the status of the complaints. Outcomes of investigations are published on by the JCIO.
A judge who “decided not to punish” three protesters at a pro-Palestinian protest has come under fire after appearing to support a social media post calling for a “free Palestine”.
The three protesters, 29-year-old Heba Alhayek, 26-year-old Pauline Ankunda, and 27-year-old Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, were found guilty of a terror offence on Tuesday, for displaying paraglider images at a pro-Palestinian march in central London in October 2023.
The protest was held a week after Hamas militants had launched a surprise assault from Gaza into Israel on 7 October, before killing more than 1,000 people.
Some of the attackers used paragliders to get over Israeli defences and get into the country.
Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram spared them any jail time, handed each woman a 12-month conditional discharge, and told them:
“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”.
Since the verdict, a screenshot has surfaced which shows him liking a post, reading: “Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist (sic) 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.”
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), which claimed Judge Ikram had liked a post, alleged the activity suggested possible bias.
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.
A spokesperson for the CAA said the judge’s actions provided “grounds to set his ruling aside” in the terror offence case.
But the judge said he “didn’t know he had liked the post” and “if he did, it was a genuine mistake”, according to the Judicial Press Office on his behalf.
City News has not been able to independently verify the post being liked by the judge’s account, and the PA news agency said the LinkedIn profile appears to have been removed from the platform.
The allegations of bias have prompted significant backlash.
Former home secretary and attorney general Suella Braverman said it was “utterly shocking that a member of the judiciary may have behaved in this way,” adding that the sentence passed on the three women must be reviewed.
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.
Downing Street said it had referred the case to the Attorney General.
A source told the PA news agency: “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. It’s deeply troubling.”
The Attorney General’s Office is understood to have received several referrals arguing the sentence was unduly lenient.
But a spokeswoman said the sentence was not eligible to be reviewed because it was not handed down in a crown court, which deals with the most serious criminal cases.
The Judicial Press Office said it does not comment on whether complaints regarding judicial conduct had been received, or the status of the complaints.
Outcomes of investigations are published by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
