THE Attorney General has ruled out a review into the sentencing of pro-Palestine protesters despite the judge being dragged into a bias row.
Senior Tories demanded a probe after Tan Ikram “liked” anti-Israel content before going easy on three women over terror charges.
Oliver Dixon – The SunTan Ikram ‘liked’ anti-Israel content before going easy on three women over terror charges.[/caption]
PAMr Ikram liked a post that read: ‘Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist, you can bomb, but you cannot hide’[/caption]
He seemed to have endorsed a social media post about Israeli “terrorism”.
Downing Street referred the case to the Attorney General but it is understood Victoria Prentis said it does not qualify.
Undue leniency cases only apply for crown court judgments, whereas this was a summary magistrates court case.
Mr Ikram, a deputy senior district judge, decided “not to punish” the three women who had displayed images of paragliders — which Hamas used to enter Israel — at a march in October.
They got 12-month conditional discharges at Westminster magistrates court this week after he told them: “Your lesson has been well learnt. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas.”
Mr Ikram liked a LinkedIn post three weeks ago that read: “Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist, you can bomb, but you cannot hide.”
He denied knowledge of doing so and said “if I did then it was a genuine mistake”.
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman insisted: “Utterly shocking that a member of the judiciary may have behaved in this way.
“Judges must be impartial and beyond reproach.
“The sentence must be reviewed.”
Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
