Whichever judge had been asked to decide the fate of the woman who assaulted Nigel Farage, amid repeated claims that Britain suffers from a “two tier” justice system, might have considered themselves on a sticky wicket.
For Tan Ikram, the country’s deputy chief magistrate, the task was particularly unenviable. For Ikram, who turns 60 next year, has arguably become Britain’s most controversial judge in recent years.
From “liking” a post on social media that described Israel as a “terrorist” state, to deciding not to jail three pro-Palestine protesters he found guilty of brandishing images of Hamas paragliders, and finding a transgender activist who told a crowd to “punch a terf” not guilty of intentionally encouraging the commission of an offence, Ikram’s actions have repeatedly drawn public criticism.
Ikram’s past controversies might help to explain the level of feeling among some of those who criticised his decision to give Victoria Thomas Bowen, who threw a milkshake at Farage on June 4, a suspended sentence and unpaid work, rather than a custodial sentence, for assault by beating and criminal damage. Thomas Bowen, a 25-year-old Only Fans model, had pleaded guilty and prosecutors said she had said “she did not regret her actions”. Ikram said her probation officer claimed that she showed “genuine remorse”, but he added: “The facts suggest otherwise.”
OnlyFans model Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, threw a milkshake at Farage on June 4 – TOLGA AKMEN/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock/Shutterstock
Responding to the sentencing, Farage said: “We now live in a country where you can assault a Member of Parliament and not go to prison. The latest example of two-tier justice.”
Farage and many other prominent Right-wing figures have railed against what they see as an overbearing approach by authorities towards those on the Right, while failing to deal sufficiently harshly with, for example, anti-Semitic incidents on pro-Palestine marches.
“This is a clear case of two-tier justice,” says Suella Braverman, the former home secretary and attorney general, of the Thomas Bowen ruling. “No ifs or buts, anyone who threatens or attacks any candidate for public office should go to prison. Lenient sentences like this damage the reputation of the judiciary and put the public in danger.”
In isolation the sentence might not have been noteworthy, in that the decision to not send a young woman into our overcrowded prison system is hardly uncommon. Ikram himself said in his sentencing remarks that while attacking politicians “is a dangerous trend and one which we must all do our part to counter… I am required to consider whether I can suspend a sentence in every case, especially short prison sentences. I have reflected carefully on the necessity of an immediate sentence with the current prison populations. I have just about been persuaded to suspend the sentence I will impose.”
However the decision to allow Thomas Bowen to avoid prison is stoking concern about how the controversies involving Ikram are affecting public perceptions of the judiciary.
“The critical point of any justice system is that it has to maintain public confidence and anything that might undermine confidence is extremely concerning,” says Lord Wolfson KC, the shadow attorney general, who previously spoke out over Ikram’s public comments about his jailing of a police officer in 2022.
The Judicial Office pointed out that judges cannot comment on individual cases. Ikram did not respond to a request for comment on the criticisms of him and broader issues raised by the examples given in this article.
Ikram describes himself on an online profile as “not a stereotypical judge”, coming from “a very ordinary background”. His mother was a factory worker and his father was a postman and he worked as a mobile phone salesman before becoming a solicitor in Slough, where he grew up. Ikram is the country’s deputy lead “diversity and community relations judge” and in 2022 was awarded a CBE for services to judicial diversity.
In February Ikram presided over the trial of Heba Alhayek and Pauline Ankunda after they had attached images of paragliders to their backs, and Noimutu Olayinka, who had attached another to a sign, during a pro-Palestinian march. The “paraglider girls” had been found guilty under the Terrorism Act of appearing to show support for a terrorist group, since paragliders had been one of the ways Hamas had launched its attack on Israel on Oct 7 2023. Ikram said he had “decided not to punish” the women and issued a 12-month conditional discharge. “You crossed the line,” he said, “but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue.” He also said, “I want to be clear, there’s no evidence that any of these defendants are supporters of Hamas, or were seeking to show support for them.”
In the eyes of Ikram’s critics, “emotions” were a debatable reason for mitigation. Shortly after this, it was revealed that he had been disciplined by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) for allowing a “perception of bias” in the judiciary. He had liked an anti-Israel post on LinkedIn, which he said he had tapped twice inadvertently, an explanation accepted by the investigation.
Heba Alhayek and Pauline Ankunda were issued with a 12-month conditional discharge after they had attached images of paragliders to their backs during a pro-Palestinian march – Metropolitan Police/PA
In June, Dame Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, upgraded an initial recommendation to issue Ikram with advice on his contact, to issue the judge with a formal warning.
“After careful consideration, the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice were not satisfied that a sanction of formal advice was sufficient in this case,” a statement from the JCIO said. “In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that, in addition to having breached the guidance on social media use, the judge’s actions caused significant reputational damage to the judiciary, as evidenced by the extraordinary number of complaints made to the JCIO.”
Two years earlier, in 2022, Ikram jailed PC James Watts for 20 weeks for sharing jokes on WhatsApp making fun of the murdered George Floyd, whose death in Minneapolis in 2020 led to the Black Lives Matter protests. In a diversity presentation to students at the College of DuPage in Illinois, Ikram discussed his sentencing in the context of institutional racism saying, “We’ve still got a lot of work to do” and “I gave him a long prison sentence. The police were horrified by that.”
“The tradition that judges don’t discuss their cases was there for a reason,” says Wolfson, who criticised Ikram in March, when details of his remarks about the case became public. “It wasn’t to keep justice secret, but it was because that’s just not how a sensible justice system works. If you discuss it the case never ends – the judge gives a sentence then gives a talk about it and answers questions about it. We don’t want to get to a place where judges are recognised on the street – not because of their safety but because justice is not a branch of entertainment. Judges need to be careful about what they say.”
Ikram separately faced accusations of leniency in August 2023 when ruling on the case of Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman who had told a crowd at a pride event to “punch a terf [a slur against gender-critical women]”. Addressing activists at the march, in July 2023, Baker said: “If you see a terf, punch them in the f—ing face.”
Baker had been released from prison three years earlier after serving 30 years for the kidnapping and attempted murder of a relative, and for attempting to kill another prisoner while incarcerated.
But Ikram cleared her of “intentionally encouraging the commission of an offence” at the march in July 2023, remarking: “I think it’s also possible you’re just, as you say, an idiot who was trying to get attention to your cause, that you didn’t intend for people to do it, but you said it because you wanted the publicity.”
In a further case, in May 2024, Ikram found Met Police officer PC Perry Lathwood guilty of assault for handcuffing a black woman who was refusing to show her bus ticket at an inspection. While conceding that “it was not through bad faith”, he said Lathwood had “crossed the line and got it wrong” and fined him £1,500. Four months later this was overturned at appeal. Rick Prior, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, described Ikram’s decision as “erroneous and perverse”.
At the very least, suggests Wolfson, the controversies involving Ikram highlight the need for judges to fully explain their actions to a concerned public.
“Judges need to give clear reasons for the decisions they make in every case, including the sentence, so that the public understands clearly.”