Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, who presided over the sentencing of three individuals on Tuesday charged with terrorism offenses in the United Kingdom, has now been accused of holding a bias that may have contributed to his decision not to punish the trio, according to a press release from Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA).
Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, had been arrested after they displayed images of paragliders during a pro-Palestinian protest, which was interpreted as support for the Hamas terrorist group who were recorded using paragliders to access Israel during their October 7 attack.
Remember these women?They displayed an image of a paraglider – a symbol that immediately came to be associated with the Hamas attack of 7th October – at an anti-Israel protest in October.It is right that they have been convicted of terrorism offences.But what is… pic.twitter.com/8xgvnPvJwp
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) February 13, 2024
Detective Chief Superintendent Hayley Sewart of the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command said, “The images that circulated on social media of these women caused widespread outrage.
“This was a unique case examined in detail by a senior judge, and the case built by officers has led to guilty verdicts.
“In the context of the pro-Palestine protests we have seen in London, we have always been clear that showing support for a terror group is a criminal offence, and anyone who does this faces arrest and prosecution.
“The right to protest is always coupled with a responsibility for those protesting to act lawfully. The Met will pursue anyone suspected of committing criminal offences at protests.”
Hamas is a registered terrorist organization in Britain and support for the group can result in imprisonment or a fine under the Terrorism Act (2000).
Ikram, who has now been accused of bias, sentenced the trio to twelve-month conditional discharges at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
Ikram claimed that there was no evidence that the group supported Hamas, but stated, “seven days [before the paraglide posters were displayed], Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom. 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.”
A spokesperson for CAA said “It is right that these three women, who displayed an image of a paraglider – a symbol that immediately came to be associated with the Hamas attack of 7th October – at an anti-Israel protest, have been convicted of terrorism offences. What is inexplicable is that Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram has seen fit ‘not to punish’ them. 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.”
Why was Ikram accused of bias?
CAA has claimed that the judge's social media presents clues that he may have a bias that would impact his rulings. Ikram was found to have liked a video on LinkedIn that was captioned “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 is coming for you.”
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
The original poster of the video, Sham Uddin, is a barrister standing to become the Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green. The Jewish Chronicle published that Uddin had described the October 7 massacre as a “false flag operation.” The JC article also noted that Uddin has drawn focus to the fact that former Home Secretary Suella Braverman is married to a Jewish man and accused her of “kowtowing to her Israeli masters.”
A spokesperson for CAA commented that “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 offenses, on the basis of actual or apparent bias. We are sharing our findings with the Crown Prosecution Service, which may wish to appeal the verdict, and we are considering various legal options. We are also submitting a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.”
CAA confirmed that they will share the findings of their investigation with the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service and will be submitting a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.