Judge given formal warning after CAA complaint in relation to appearance of bias after his lenient sentence for Hamas paraglider protesters
Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Taiwo, 27, were given twelve-month conditional discharges at Westminster Magistrates’ Court earlier this year after being convicted of terrorism offences.
During a demonstration in London shortly after the 7th October attack, when Hamas murdered over 1,200 Israelis and took some 250 people hostage, Ms Alhayek and Ms Ankunda attached images of paragliders to their backs; Ms Taiwo attached such an image to the handle of a placard.
They were arrested and charged with carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion that they are supporters of the proscribed antisemitic genocidal terrorist organisation, Hamas.
Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram reportedly said: “Seven days earlier, 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.” He concluded that he had “decided not to punish” the trio.
Campaign Against Antisemitism revealed that Judge Ikram’s social media activity may suggest bias. Specifically, the judge ‘liked’ a post that 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.”
Campaign Against Antisemitism submitted a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), and it is understood that Judge Ikram also referred himself to the body as well. The complaint has been upheld and the JCIO has published a statement.
Judge Ikram was found to have breached Social Media Guidance for the judiciary by identifying himself as a judge on LinkedIn, but it was accepted that he had ‘liked’ the post inadvertently and that there were no other inappropriate posts or engagement.
He reportedly described the contents of the post as “repulsive”, and told investigators that he had closed his LinkedIn account to mitigate the impact of his action. He said that it was an account that “he had primarily used for his work as a Diversity and Community Relations judge”.
The act was found to have amounted to misconduct and the nominated judge recommended a sanction of formal advice. However, Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk and Lady Chief Justice Dame Sue Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill “were not satisfied that a sanction of formal advice was sufficient” and increased the sanction to a formal warning because “the judge’s actions caused significant reputational damage to the judiciary”.
Judge Ikram sits on the judicial appointments committee and is a Diversity and Community Relations judge.
