Judge Tan Ikram letting off Hamas fanatics is a joke, writes Carole Malone
Judges shouldn't ever dip as much as a toe into the political arena. Nor should their own personal beliefs have any bearing on the sentences they dole out.
What the hell is happening to our justice system? This week Muslim judge Tan Ikram "let off" three women who brandished paraglider images on their backs during an anti-Israel march in the wake of the bloody October 7 massacre. He could have given these women six-month prison sentences and unlimited fines.
But his reasoning for giving them a piddling Conditional Discharge was that, even though they'd crossed a line, "emotions were running high at the time".
Yes, and I'm sure the emotions of rapists and murderers would be high at the time they're raping and murdering. But what these women did wasn't in the heat of the moment.
They planned in advance to stick those vile images on their backs. It was a wilful act. Some would say an evil one.And they did it knowing that Hamas' butchers crossed into Israel on paragliders - and filmed themselves doing it.
Lawyers for the women ludicrously claimed the paragliders were "symbols of peace".
But what stinks is that, three weeks earlier, Judge Ikram had "liked" a social media post by Left-wing activist, barrister Sham Uddin, who loves dabbling in fantastical conspiracy theories about Israel. Uddin's post ended: "Israel you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide. Justice will be coming for you." Judge Ikram insists he liked the post by mistake. Really?
How bizarre he made a mistake with that particular post from a man famed for anti-Israel rants.And if he's so careless he didn't realise he was liking antisemitic junk then he really shouldn't be sitting in judgement of others.
The three key pillars to our esteemed justice system are independence, impartiality and integrity. Can we really say these principles were applied with these three women?
And how can Ikram's impartiality ever again be trusted? Because even though he admitted these women had crossed a line, his sentence in no way reflected that. Downing Street says the decision is "deeply troubling". A source said: "Serious questions are being asked about how a judge posting this online was able to preside over this landmark case."
And the Government should be troubled as this happened in the week it was revealed British Jews had suffered an "explosion of hatred" since the Hamas terror attack.
How can any Jew now who comes before Ikram feel they'll get a fair trial?
Conversely, every Muslim accused of wrongdoing will be clamouring to get in front of him because the perception - rightly or wrongly - will be that he'll go easy on them. And that's the direct and dangerous consequence of what he's done.
Let's not forget Judge Ikram is the bloke who, in 2022, sent PC James Watts to prison for 20 weeks after he shared racist jokes in a WhatsApp group.
Then in December, he handed out suspended prison and community service sentences to six retired police officers who shared racist jokes about Meghan Markle, again onWhatsApp.
Yet he fails to dole out the same brand of harsh justice to three women glorifying the murderers and rapists of Hamas.
In the public domain, Ikram's impartiality is now shot. And it's no wonder British Jews are running scared. They can't rely on the police to protect them. And now it's unclear whether they'll be protected by our supposedly impartial justice system. And if they can't 100 per cent rely on the British courts to protect them from hatred, then antisemitism will continue to rage on our streets.
Judges shouldn't ever dip as much as a toe into the political arena. Nor should their own personal beliefs have any bearing on the sentences they dole out.
Which is why Ikram may now face disciplinary action, after guidance stated that judges known to have strong views should consider whether or not to hear a case. The guidance says: "Be aware you can convey information about yourself and your views by liking posts."
