A refugee living in the United Kingdom will have her immigration status reviewed and could face possible deportation after appearing in a pro-Palestinian protest wearing a picture of a paraglider.
29-year-old Heba Alhayek was one of three women convicted last February under the UK’s Terrorism Act of 2000 after they displayed images of paragliders during a pro-Palestinian march in London on October 14 last year, just seven days after the October 7 attack by Hamas against Israel, which saw 1,200 Israelis killed and Hamas fighters cross the Israel-Gaza border using paragliders.
Alhayek, including 27-year-old Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo and 26-year-old Pauline Ankunda, were found guilty after a two-day trial on the second week of February and were handed down 12-month conditional discharges for “carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion” that they were supporting Hamas, an act illegal under British law.
The judge who handed down the decision, Judge Tan Ikram, also came under fire from MPs and campaigners after he was revealed to have “accidentally” liked a social media post from a barrister that branded Israel as a terrorist state.
Remember these women?
They displayed an image of a paraglider – a symbol that immediately came to be associated with the Hamas attack of 7th October – at an anti-Israel protest in October.
It is right that they have been convicted of terrorism offences.
But what is… pic.twitter.com/8xgvnPvJwp— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) February 13, 2024
Judge Ikram told the court he decided “not to punish” the three women because even if they “crossed the line” by showing the stickers, he accepted that they were not “seeking to show any support for Hamas” and that their “emotions” had “run very high” during the offense. A conditional discharge would mean the three women would be punished more severely if they were found guilty of committing the same offense within the next 12 months.
“Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that.” Judge Ikram said in his sentencing remarks.
Judge Ikram also rejected arguments from defense lawyers who claimed that parachutes were symbols of liberation in Palestinian art, saying he was “sure” the images referred to the October 7 attacks by Hamas.
The word should be revoked not reviewed.
— Florance Notarius (@fnotarius) February 16, 2024
The deputy senior district judge “liked” a LinkedIn video post by Sham Uddin, a barrister who previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attacks to happen.
“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,” the post read.
This issue came to light just a day after he let the women walk free from the Westminster Magistrates' Court.
They won't deport her. The courts are too lax
— Nick Dampier (@Nick_Dampier1) February 21, 2024
Although the British government does not have the power to increase the sentences against the three women and no complaints were filed over Judge Ikram’s handling of the case, the judge may still face disciplinary action over his conduct for violating the Guide to Judicial Conduct, which states that judges “should be aware of the risk of undermining trust and confidence in the judiciary by expressing, or appearing to endorse, views which could cast doubt on their objectivity.”
“He didn't know he had liked the post. If he did, it was a genuine mistake.” A judiciary spokesperson said on behalf of Judge Ikram.
Alhayek came to the UK and was granted refugee status after claiming to be fleeing Hamas, adding that her life would be at risk if she returned to Gaza after her family’s criticism of the terrorist group.
Don't worry about the plane, just give her a para glider. France is in easy reach.
— michael (@499michael) February 21, 2024
Now, the British Home Office is reportedly looking into her immigration status after she was convicted of violating the Terrorism Act of 2000.
“The Government will always prioritize the safety and security of the UK, the offenses associated with proscription make it clear that supporting banned terrorist groups will not be tolerated,” a Home Office spokesperson said.
Downing Street also expressed concern over how the case was handled, describing its result as “deeply troubling.”
“Serious questions are being raised in government on how a judge posting this online was able to preside over this landmark case and what this means for the sentencing decision,” a source told the Telegraph and Daily Mail, who also reported on the story.
“Utterly shocking that a member of the judiciary may have behaved in this way. With anti-Semitism at an all-time high, judges must be impartial and beyond reproach. Justice must be done, and it must also be seen to be done. The sentence must be reviewed,” former Home Secretary Suella Braverman also said.
Even though a spokesperson for the Attorney General's Office said the sentence was eligible for review as it was not made in a crown court, a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) spokesperson said, “We are carefully considering any future actions in relation to this case.”
