Asylum review for paraglider row protester
Home Office questions support for terror group by refugee who claimed she fled Gaza in fear of Hamas
‘Questions are being raised on how a judge posting this online was able to preside over this landmark case’
THE refugee who wore a paraglider image at a pro-palestine protest is to have her immigration status reviewed,
The Telegraph understands.
Heba Alhayek, 29, was one of three women convicted this week under the Terrorism Act after they displayed the images referencing the Oct 7 terror attack on Israel which killed 1,200 people and saw Hamas fighters cross the border using paragliders.
The women, who included Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo and Pauline Ankunda, were handed conditional discharges for “carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion” that they were supporters of Hamas. Alhayek was granted refugee status in the UK after claiming that her life would be in danger if she returned to Gaza because of her family’s criticism of Hamas, her lawyer told the court.
It is understood the Home Office is looking into the issues arising from her conviction. A spokesman said supporting a terrorist group would not be tolerated. “The Government will always prioritise the safety and security of the UK, the offences associated with proscription make it clear that supporting banned terrorist groups will not be tolerated,” a Home Office spokesman said.
It follows a crackdown on foreigners for alleged anti-semitic behaviour that led to the revoking of an exiled Egyptian television presenter’s visa for allegedly publicly backing Hamas. Moataz Matar was also placed on a watchlist, barring him from returning to Britain, after taking part in pro-palestinian protests in
London. The disclosure was made amid criticism of Tan Ikram, the judge in the case, after it emerged he liked a social media post branding Israel a terrorist.
Judge Ikram told the court he had decided “not to punish” the three women because, although they had “crossed the line” by displaying the images, he accepted they were not “seeking to show any support for Hamas”. The maximum sentence for the offence is six months in jail, but Judge Ikram limited it to discharges.
It emerged that three weeks ago, the deputy senior district judge liked a Linkedin post by a barrister who had promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the Oct 7 attack.
The post by Sham Uddin, a barrister, stated: “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.”
Judge Ikram may face disciplinary action after guidance stated judges known to have strong views should consider whether to hear a case. The guidance states they should “be aware that you can convey information about yourself and your views by … liking posts”.
The Government is, however, powerless to take action to increase the sentences. Because the charges against the three women were “summary” offences only triable in the magistrates’ court, they are not covered by the scheme that allows the Attorney General to seek to reverse “unduly lenient” sentences.
The scheme enables Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, to refer a case to the Appeal Court to reconsider a sentence if there is a complaint that it is “unduly lenient”.
Downing Street said the decision was “deeply troubling”. A source said: “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.”
Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, tweeted: “With anti-semitism at an all-time high, judges must be impartial and beyond reproach.”
In a statement, Judge Ikram said: “I didn’t know that I’d liked that post. If I did then it was a genuine mistake.”