Judge who let women who wore parachute images at pro-Palestine march walk free as it emerges he liked post branding Israel 'terrorists'
A row has broken out after a judge who decided to let three women wearing parachute images at a pro-Palestine march walk free admitted to liking a social media post branding Israel a 'terrorist'.
Tanweer Ikram is facing calls to be investigated for a conflict of interest after he liked a LinkedIn post calling for a 'free Palestine' by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October the 7th attack.
The senior district judge admitted to liking the post 'by mistake' three weeks ago, but was told by the Judicial Office that the matter would not be investigated further.
A number of social media users felt Ikram should face disciplinary action after judicial guidance issued last year stated that judges known to have strong views should consider whether to hear a case. These calls were fuelled further by senior legal figures including a former home secretary and a Jewish campaign group, who called for a review of Ikram's sentencing of the three woman.
The post which was liked by Ikram stated "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."
An X user posted a photo of the post liked by Ikram, along with the caption "This is Tanweer Ikram, the 'impartial' judge who decided not to punish 3 women who were convicted of terrorism offences for displaying images of paragliders, celebrating the Hamas tactics. He needs to be investigated since this is a conflict of interest."
Another person commented "Fully agree. There is conflict of interest. Tanweer Ikram, by not voluntarily recusing himself, reveals that he cannot be trusted. He needs to be investigated."
A third wrote "This is absolutely shocking! That sentencing should be reviewed."
The post liked by Ikram was written by barrister Sham Uddin, who is standing to be an independent MP in east London. Uddin has made a series of anti-Israel posts, including an October the 7th conspiracy theory that Israel knowingly allowed the attacks to take place to 'expel' Palestinians.
According to social media guidance to the judiciary, judges should "be aware that you can convey information about yourself and your views by liking posts".
Downing Street said that it had referred the case to the Attorney General, describing the sentencing decision as "deeply troubling".
A spokesperson for the Judicial Office told the media "I spoke to the judge in question and he said it was a genuine mistake. He didn't know he liked the post and deleted the like immediately. This won't be investigated further."
Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, were found guilty of an offence under the Terrorism Act after displaying images of paragliders at a protest in central London. Militants from Hamas used paragliders to enter Israel from Gaza before killing more than 1,000 Israelis. The three women were handed a 12-month conditional discharge by Ikram, meaning that they could face a prison sentence if they commit a crime within the year. Under maximum magistrates' court custodial sentencing guidelines they could have received a six-month jail term.
The Jewish Leadership Council said that the women had got off 'scot-free'.
Ikram told the women "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." Adding "Your lesson has been well learnt. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas."
Suella Braverman KC, former home secretary and attorney general, said "I am shocked and deeply concerned at these findings. We must have confidence that judges are impartial and act in the interests of justice at all times. This raises serious questions about the sentencing of these despicable criminals and there must be an immediate review."
laudia Mendoza, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council 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." Adding "The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office should immediately investigate."
No action against judge who dealt leniently with three women 'Hamas paragliders' protestors and liked anti-Israel post
Senior MPs have criticised prosecutors for dropping their review of a judge's decision to give lenient sentences to three protesters exposed by The Mail on Sunday for sporting 'Hamas paragliders' pictures on their jackets.
Heba AlHayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimotu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, displayed the pictures during a pro-Palestine march in London, seven days after the October 7 Hamas terror attack in Israel that left nearly 1,200 dead. There was national outrage after The Mail on Sunday revealed the women at the march, as the pictures on their jackets celebrated the method Hamas terrorists used to fly into Israel from Gaza to unleash their killing spree.
The front page story sparked a public appeal by police, which led to the arrest of the three women and charges of inviting support for a proscribed organisation, which is punishable by up to 14 years jail.
Judge Tan Ikram found them guilty at Westminster Magistrates Court but did not impose a jail term or community order, saying their lesson had been 'well-learned'. But questions were raised about the judge's impartiality after it emerged that on his LinkedIn page he 'liked' a video which branded Israel a 'terrorist' state and called for a free Palestine.
Although the judge said he liked the post by mistake, the 'Crown Prosecution Service' investigated after two Jewish groups complained to the 'Judicial Conduct Investigations Office'. But the CPS said no action would be taken, adding "We have carefully considered the option of judicial review of the judge's decision and concluded that this is unlikely to be successful."
Tory ex-Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said he would write to the Director of Public Prosecutions demanding a full explanation.
Mr Buckland, a former judge, said "We can't afford any suggestion of intrusion of politics into cases like this. They are sensitive enough." He added "Judge Ikram should have declared his social media activities before the trial or recused himself."
Tory former leader Iain Duncan Smith said "His [the judge's] sentiments are in the wrong place. It's vital full impartiality is proven in every decision made."
It was reported recently that AlHayek, who is originally from Gaza, is having her asylum status reviewed by the Home Office.
A representative from the Home Office later said "In some circumstances it is appropriate to revoke protection status where evidence emerges that status was obtained by deception, or where someone represents a threat to our national security or demonstrates extremist behaviour."