A judge who “decided not to sentence” three women who displayed paragliding footage at a protest has come under criticism for appearing to support a social media post calling for a “free Palestine”.
The call for an investigation into the allegations came as follows: Heba Alhayek, 29; Pauline Ankunda, 26; and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27; They were convicted of terrorism charges following an incident at a pro-Palestinian march in central London a week after Hamas militants entered Israel.
The trio were spared jail after Senior Deputy District Judge Tan Ikram said he judged their lesson “well learned”.
The judge now faces a potential conflict of interest over allegations that he liked a message shared on LinkedIn by a lawyer accused of promoting conspiracy theories that Israel authorized the October 7 attacks.
Campaigners have called for the decision to be reviewed and for the judge to face disciplinary action after allegations of social media activity emerged following the sentencing.
A screenshot shared on social media shows the judge’s account liking Sham Uddin’s three-week-old post: “Free Palestine. You can run away from Israeli terrorists in the UK, in the US and of course in Israel, you can bomb but you can’t hide; Justice will come for you.”
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), which claimed that Judge Ikram had liked a post, claimed that this activity indicated possible bias.
But according to comments published on his behalf by the Judicial Press Office, the judge said he “didn’t know he liked the post” and that “if he did, it was a genuine mistake.”
The PA news agency could not independently confirm that the post was liked by the judge’s account. His LinkedIn profile appears to have been removed from the platform.
Women bowed their heads and cried in the dock at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday as the verdict was read.
They displayed the footage on October 14, 2023, just seven days after Hamas militants launched a surprise attack to enter Israel from Gaza on October 7, killing more than 1,000 Israelis.
Some of the attackers used paragliders to bypass Israeli defenses and enter the country.
The women denied charges of carrying or displaying an article that would raise reasonable suspicion that they were supporters of Hamas, an organization banned under terrorism laws.
However, prosecutors argued that it was “not a coincidence” that the defendants exhibited the images so soon after the attack.
The group’s lawyers argued that they were actually displaying pictures of parachute emojis rather than paragliders, and that flying-related images are a common symbol of peace in the region.
Judge Ikram acknowledged that the image was “misidentified as paragliding” by the police and prosecution, adding that there was no evidence that any of the women supported Hamas.
But he said it “didn’t matter” because it was about what a “reasonable person” would think the painting meant and he did not believe it would be interpreted as “merely a symbol of freedom.”
Judge Ikram, who gave every woman the right to 12 months of conditional release, meaning that they would not be punished unless they committed more crimes, said: “You crossed the line, but it would be right to say that emotions were very high on this issue.”
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said displaying the footage amounted to “glorification of the actions” of Hamas.
Claudia Mendoza, executive director of the Jewish Leadership Council, called the sentence “woefully inadequate” and called the judge’s words “deeply 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 a range of legal options. We are also making a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).”
Downing Street said the case had been referred to the Attorney General. A source said: “It raises serious questions 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. This is deeply disturbing.”
Former interior minister and attorney general Suella Braverman said in the X post: “It is completely shocking that a member of the judiciary would act in this way.
“With anti-Semitism at an all-time high, judges need to be impartial and impeccable. Justice needs to be ensured and seen to be achieved. “The sentence needs to be reconsidered.”
Mr Uddin, a barrister at Kings Bench Walk Chambers who has said he is running to become an independent MP for east London, has been at the center of media reports over allegations he published a series of anti-Israel posts, including a conspiracy theory that Israel accused of knowing taking. He allowed the attacks to be carried out to “deport” Palestinians.
Sharing media reports about Judge Ikram on LinkedIn, Mr. Uddin said in a post: “All because a judge liked my LinkedIn post; tonight the Israel lobby made me more famous. They were reporting about me in the news.”
The Judicial Press Office said it did not comment on whether complaints about judicial conduct had been received or on the status of the complaints. The results of the research are published by JCIO.
It appears that the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office received many applications claiming that the sentence was too light.
But a spokesman said the sentence was not eligible for review because it was not handed down in the crown court, which deals with the most serious criminal cases.
The CPS, which is thought to seek a judicial review in the case, has been contacted for comment.