The Deputy Senior District Judge, Tanweer Ikram, has been given a formal warning for misconduct for liking an anti-Israel post by barrister Sham Uddin, following complaints by UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI)and others.

This comes two years after the Senior District Judge, Paul Goldspring, was issued with formal advice after he gave the impression that he favoured the Palestinian cause by describing support for it as “worthy” when sentencing a defendant for wearing T-shirts supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Golders Green.

Judge Ikram was reported by UKLFI and others to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) after “liking” an anti-Israel post shortly before a trial of three pro-Palestinian demonstrators for offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Judge Ikram found the three defendants guilty of wearing or carrying articles arousing reasonable suspicion of membership or support of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, at a demonstration on 14 October 2023. The articles had images of paragliders. A week earlier, paragliders had been used by Hamas in its massive terrorist attack on Israel.

Surprisingly, Judge Ikram decided not to punish the defendants, stating that he did not find that they were seeking to show any support for Hamas. He gave them 12-month conditional discharges and this decision was publicly criticised as unduly lenient.

Less than 3½ weeks before this trial, Judge Ikram had “liked” a post on LinkedIn by barrister, Sham Uddin, which included a selfie-video of him participating in a pro-Palestinian march and the text “Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist born 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”.

This was posted on 20 January 2024 and must have been “liked” by Judge Ikram on or after that date. The trial of the paraglider protestors took place on 13 February 2024.  Judge Ikram also liked another  post by Uddin of 7 February 2024.

However, Judge Ikram maintained that he had not intended to “like” Uddin’s post, which he described as “repulsive” in his response to the complaints. He commissioned a technical report that confirmed he had no direct social media connection with Uddin and noted that a LinkedIn user could inadvertently trigger a “like” on an iPhone by double-tapping an image.

The JCIO received more than 60 complaints about the issue, of which 43 were referred to a judge for consideration. The remaining complaints were rejected because they did not comply with the applicable rules.

The judge concluded that Judge Ikram’s “liking” of Uddin’s post was not deliberate or the result of carelessness. However, this had resulted in a perception of bias which undermined public confidence in the judiciary, particularly as Judge Ikram had identified himself as a judge on social media. It therefore amounted to misconduct which should be sanctioned by his being given “formal advice”.

The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice decided “after careful consideration” that a stronger sanction was required and gave Judge Ikram a “formal warning”. In doing so, they took into account that Judge Ikram’s actions had caused significant reputational damage to the judiciary, as evidenced by the extraordinary number of complaints made to the JCIO.

Judge Ikram remains a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission which selects judges in England and Wales. UKLFI wrote previously to the Lord Chancellor, asking him to consider whether Judge Ikram should continue in this sensitive role. It appears that no decision has yet been made on this.

The JCIO previously issued the lighter sanction of “formal advice” when it upheld a complaint by Gideon Falter, Chief Executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, regarding Senior District Judge, Paul Goldspring. When sentencing a defendant for wearing T-shirts supporting the terrorist organisations Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Golders Green (an area of London with many Jewish residents), Judge Goldspring had said that the defendant’s support for the Palestinian cause was “worthy” but his backing for violence was not.

Jonathan Turner, UKLFI Chief Executive, commented: “I find it surprising that the judge who reviewed Judge Ikram’s file found that his “liking” of Uddin’s post was neither deliberate nor the result of carelessness. At all events, Judge Ikram should have been very careful when viewing an account as controversial as that of Sham Uddin.

It is also alarming that the two most senior magistrates in England and Wales, whose roles include hearing the most sensitive cases in the magistrates’ courts and guiding other magistrates, have had to be reprimanded for giving the appearance of favouring Palestinians in their conflict with Israel.”

JCIO statement on Judge Ikram HERE

Judge Ikram’s advice to applicants for judicial office HERE – see at 50:37–53:37 for his advice on social media