Ikram: Formal warning over social media post
The Lord Chancellor has hit out at his Conservative shadow for making “dangerous” public criticism of a senior judge.
Alex Norris said politicians had to be particularly careful given the increasing security concerns judges faced.
He was responding to a letter earlier this month from Nick Timothy about Tan Ikram, the deputy chief magistrate at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
Though Mr Timothy said his policy was not to criticise individual judges, “Mr Ikram’s record and actions are deeply concerning”, and he called on Mr Norris to investigate his continued suitability for the bench.
The letter, which the MP published on X, highlighted the judge’s role as an adviser the British Pakistan Foundation, which he said has used the phrase “so-called grooming gangs” to refer to “the vile rape gangs that sexually abused young girls across Britain”.
Mr Timothy described the foundation as a “deeply partisan organisation whose campaigns have included demanding that Suella Braverman, while she was serving as home secretary, be expelled from Parliament”.
The MP for West Suffolk also cited Judge Ikram’s decisions as a magistrate, such as giving a conditional discharge to three women who were convicted of terrorism offences for displaying images of paragliders just days after Hamas used them in the October 7 attack.
“Mr Ikram’s impartiality was then questioned after it emerged that the had liked a post on social media which read ‘Free 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’.”
In 2024, Judge Ikram was handed a formal warning for misconduct [1] over this, with the investigation concluding that he had liked the post accidentally.
Mr Timothy added that Judge Ikram has had “questionable rulings overturned” and been criticised for making “inappropriate public comments on cases that he had heard”.
In his response, Mr Norris noted how the formal warning had been issued through the procedure in place to complain about judges, while Judge Ikram’s judicial decisions were subject to the ordinary appellate process.
Mr Norris went on: “I recognise that people will not always agree with judicial decisions and will want to debate them; this is a healthy feature of a vibrant democracy.
“But personalised criticism of individual judges, particularly where it relies on selective reporting or omits relevant context, as you have done, risks undermining public confidence in the ability of judges to decide cases independently and impartially.”
The Lord Chancellor noted that judicial office holders were facing “increasing security concerns” and were constrained in their ability to respond publicly to personal criticism.
“Those of us in prominent positions therefore have a particular responsibility to ensure that legitimate scrutiny does not become personal attack.
“Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Whatever our political differences, we have a shared responsibility to defend it, and to ensure that our public debate respects the independence of judges and their ability to decide the cases before them without fear or favour.
“I would ask that you refrain from mounting this kind of dangerous public criticism in future.”