by A judge has “decided not to punish” three women who displayed paraglider images at a protest after he was seen endorsing a social media post calling for a “free Palestine”.
Calls for an investigation into the claims came as Heba Alhayek, 29; Pauline Ankunda, 26; and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27; He was found guilty of a terrorist offense after the incident at a pro-Palestine march in central London a week after the Hamas militia invaded Israel.
The three were jailed after Senior Deputy District Judge Tan Ikram said he deemed their lesson “well learnt”.
Now the judge is facing allegations of a potential conflict of interest amid claims he liked a LinkedIn message posted by a lawyer accused of promoting conspiracy theories that Israel sanctioned the October 7 attacks.
Campaigners called for the decision to be reviewed and for the judge to be disciplined after his alleged social media activity emerged after the sentencing.
The screenshot shared on social media appeared to show Sham Uddin’s three-week-old post liked the judge’s account, which said: “Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorists in the United Kingdom, the United States, and of course Israel you can run, you can bomb but you can’t hide – justice will come for you.
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), which claimed that Judge Ikram liked the post, alleged that the activity suggested possible bias.
But the judge said he “didn’t know he liked the job” and “if he did, it was a serious mistake”, according to a statement issued on his behalf by the Judicial Press Office.
The PA news agency was unable to independently verify that the judge’s account liked the post. The LinkedIn profile appears to have been removed from the platform.
At Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, the women bowed their heads and bowed in the dock as the verdict was read out.
They showed the images on October 14, 2023, just seven days after the Hamas militia launched a surprise attack to enter Israel from Gaza on October 7 before killing more than 1,000 Israelis.
Some of the attackers used paragliders to overcome Israeli defenses and enter the country.
The women denied charges under terrorism laws of carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion that they support the banned organisation, Hamas.
But prosecutors argued it was “no coincidence” that the defendants were showing the images so soon after the attack.
The group’s lawyers suggested that they were actually showing images of parachute emojis rather than paragliders, and that flight-related images were a common symbol of peace in the region.
Judge Ikram agreed that the police and prosecution had “incorrectly described” the image as a paraglider, adding that there was no evidence that any women supported Hamas.
But he said it is “not relevant” because the question came down to what a “reasonable person” would think of the picture and he did not believe the image should be interpreted “only as a symbol of freedom”.
Giving each woman a 12-month conditional discharge, which means they will not be punished unless they commit further offences, Judge Ikram said: “You crossed the line, but it would be fair to say that emotions were very high on this issue.”
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the display of the images amounted to “glorification of the actions” of Hamas.
Claudia Mendoza, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, said the sentence was “grossly inadequate” and described the judge’s remarks as “very surprising”.
A CAA spokesman said: “We are sharing our findings with the Crown Prosecution Service, who may wish to appeal the decision, and are considering various legal options. We are also making a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).”
Downing Street said it had referred the case to the Attorney General. A source said: “Serious questions are being raised in the Government about how a judge who posted this online could preside over this landmark case and what this means for the sentencing decision. He is very upset.”
Former home secretary and attorney general Suella Braverman said in an X post: “It’s appalling that a member of the judiciary could behave like this.
“With anti-Semitism at an all-time high, judges must be impartial and shameless. Justice must be done and it must be seen that it is also being done. The sentence must be reviewed.”
Mr Uddin, a barrister at Kings Bench Walk Chambers who says he is standing to be an independent MP in east London, has been at the center of media reports amid allegations he posted a series of anti-Israel posts including a theory a conspiracy brought about by Israel knowingly. the attacks were allowed to “deport” the Palestinians.
Sharing the media coverage of Judge Ikram on LinkedIn, Mr Uddin said in a post: “All because a judge liked my LinkedIn post – tonight, I have been made famous by the Israeli lobby. They are reporting about me in the news.”
The Judicial Press Office said it does not comment on whether complaints have been received regarding judicial conduct, or the status of the complaints. The JCIO publishes the results of investigations.
It is understood that the Attorney General’s Office received several referrals claiming that the sentence was too lenient.
But a spokesman said the sentence was not eligible for review because it was not handed down in a crown court, which deals with the most serious criminal cases.
