For ‘Israeli terrorists’ after ‘like’ for sentencing people for ‘racist’ private WhatsApp messages but freeing Palestinian march demonstrator convicted of terrorism This raises questions about fairness.
Former home secretary, anti-Semitism campaign and Jewish leadership council decide not to punish three women convicted under terrorism laws for wearing or carrying images of paragliders at a Palestinian demonstration in London requested that it be reconsidered. Alleged social media activity by the presiding judge led to accusations of “bias”. report of Jerusalem Post Office, and request that the case be heard by the Court of Appeals.
Judge Tan Ikram Despite convicting three women under the Terrorism Act 2000, in their sentencing remarks Heba Alhayek, Pauline Ankunda and Noimuthu Olinka Taiwo said they had already learned their lesson and therefore He said no punishment was necessary. He gave them conditional discharges. This meant that they would not be punished or have a criminal record unless they committed a crime for a further 12 months.
Senior District Judge Deputy Judge Tan Ikram’s social media activity has led to his decision not to punish three women convicted of terrorism offences, based on actual or apparent bias. This suggests that there may be grounds for doing so. .
we are sharing… https://t.co/dlocy3EiPe pic.twitter.com/G4YsjeZ9th
— Antisemitism Campaign (@antisemitism) February 14, 2024
He told the trio:
All of you have been convicted of terrorist crimes. There is nothing to suggest that the police attempted to take any action of their own volition. You did not hide the fact that you continued to carry these images. You crossed a line, and it’s safe to say that emotions were running high over this issue.
Your lesson was well learned. I don’t believe you were trying to express your support for Hamas.
Nigel Farage, Brexiteer turned broadcaster characteristic The judge decided not to punish the women even though they were found to be guilty, “effectively overruling the jury,” and decided to release the women.
But then, as newspapers also claimed, internet sleuths quickly discovered include timesalleges that Associate Senior District Judge Ikram “liked” a post on Linkedin, a social media site for experts on the Gaza conflict, which led to a conflict of interest claim.
It is unclear whether Judge Ikram intentionally liked the post, but he has not yet denied it. The message in question, written by a barrister who also allegedly wrote posts about Israeli conspiracies, read: “Free Palestine. Against Israeli terrorists, both in the UK, the US and of course in Israel, you can run, you can bomb, but you cannot hide – justice is upon you. He will come.”
Guidance issued in the UK tells judges to recuse themselves from a case if they have strong views about a matter under trial. If a judge is found to have ignored this guidance, he may be subject to disciplinary action. report daily telegraph.
Further arguments suggest that Justice Ikram’s approach to sentencing was not shaped by an outright opposition to punishment. times He wrote that the former police officer presided over a lazy year-long affair in which he sent private messages to each other on the WhatsApp service. Although the messages in these private groups were not visible to the general public, they were still found to be “grossly offensive” and “racist,” and at the time the messages were sent, all were Six men, who had been retired for some time, were sentenced. Written by Ikram.
The man was given a criminal record and ordered to serve a community sentence.
Former British Home Secretary Suela Braverman, who has taken strong positions in the fight against anti-Semitism, is one of the most senior politicians to challenge the decision not to sentence the Palestine march trio. It’s a person. She said on Thursday:
“With anti-Semitism at an all-time high, judges must be impartial and above reproach. Justice must be done, and we also want justice to be done. The judgment needs to be reviewed.”
The Campaign Against Antisemitism also called for an appeal against the incident. According to JPost, their statement said it was correct that the three were convicted under UK terrorism laws for displaying terrorist symbols in public, but that Ikram had released them without punishment. He said it was “inexplicable”.
They said: “At a time of rising anti-Semitism and glorification of terrorism, the court has sent the worst possible signal to the Jewish community and we urge the CPS to appeal this unduly lenient sentence. I have high hopes for the same.”
The Jewish Leadership Council announced that the trip had ended with “no charges”, with a spokesperson saying: “In the aftermath of the brutal Hamas terrorist attack, it was clear what the footage meant. ” he said. The grossly inappropriate sentencing and the judge’s accompanying comments were extremely surprising.
“Given his previous public position on this issue, it is extremely worrying and revealing that this judge may have thought it was right to try this case himself. The Judicial Conduct Investigation Department should immediately investigate.”
Downing Street, Downing Street, said it had already referred the case to the Attorney General. The attorney general has the power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal if the sentence is “unreasonably light.” A spokesperson said the case was “deeply disturbing” and said: “How the judge who posted this online was able to preside over this landmark case, and how this could lead to sentencing… “There are serious questions within the government about what the decision means.”
