https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ee-admitted-liking-post-Israel-terrorist.html
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 7 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 Mr 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 fueled further by senior legal figures including a former home secretary and a Jewish campaign group, who called for a review of Mr Ikram's sentencing.
Tanweer Ikram (pictured) is facing calls to be investigated for a conflict of interest after he liked a LinkedIn post calling for a 'free Palestine
The post was by barrister Sham Uddin who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack
Mr Ikram had allowed the three women who displayed images of paragliders at a protest in central London to walk free
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.'
A X user posted a photo of the post liked by Mr 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 Mr Ikram was written by barrister Sham Uddin, who is standing to be an independent MP in east London.
Mr Uddin has made a series of anti-Israel posts, including an October 7 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 MailOnline: '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 on Tuesday 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'.
Mr 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.
'Your lesson has been well learnt. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas.'
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
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.
'The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office should immediately investigate.'
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 7 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 Mr 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 fueled further by senior legal figures including a former home secretary and a Jewish campaign group, who called for a review of Mr Ikram's sentencing.
Tanweer Ikram (pictured) is facing calls to be investigated for a conflict of interest after he liked a LinkedIn post calling for a 'free Palestine
The post was by barrister Sham Uddin who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack
Mr Ikram had allowed the three women who displayed images of paragliders at a protest in central London to walk free
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.'
A X user posted a photo of the post liked by Mr 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 Mr Ikram was written by barrister Sham Uddin, who is standing to be an independent MP in east London.
Mr Uddin has made a series of anti-Israel posts, including an October 7 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 MailOnline: '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 on Tuesday 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'.
Mr 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.
'Your lesson has been well learnt. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas.'
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
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.
'The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office should immediately investigate.'
