“Jeremy Corbyn egging: Brexiteer jailed for 28 days”, the BBC reported on 25th March 2019.
“Woman sentenced for hurling milkshake at Farage”, the BBC reports today.
Notice that the BBC report about Jeremy Corbyn’s attacker specified in the headline exactly how long John Murphy was sent to jail for. In contrast, today’s BBC report about Nigel Farage’s attacker, Victoria Thomas Bowen, just says she was “sentenced”. Most people read only the headlines of news stories, and therefore are probably left with the impression that she was sentenced to jail time, as John Murphy was for a similar crime. She wasn’t. Victoria Thomas Bowen was given a suspended sentence.
Oh, and one mustn’t forget that she must complete 15 “rehabilitation activity requirement days”, which usually means something like an anger management course, and pay Farage a massive victim surcharge of £154.
Two British MPs, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, have been assassinated in recent years. After both murders we heard fervent declarations that attacks on politicians were utterly unacceptable in Our Democracy. Of course we now know that neither Murphy or Thomas-Bowen intended to kill or seriously injure their victims. But when a person is struck by something thrown at them, they do not know at the moment of impact that the missile is harmless.
UPDATE: When I first saw people on Twitter pointing out the judge’s South Asian name, I dismissed the comments as the sort of snide racism that bedevils right wing Twitter. However Toby Young has assembled a list of six judgements by Senior District Judge Tan Ikram that are more than enough to give a rational person cause to doubt his impartiality.
He was last in the news six months ago:
A senior judge has been handed a formal misconduct warning for ‘liking’ a Linkedin post calling for a free Palestine, shortly before he oversaw the criminal trial of three women who displayed paraglider images at a protest.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram found defendants Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, guilty of a terror offence at a pro-Palestinian march in central London, a week after Hamas had carried out the October 7 attack in Israel.
The judge’s handling of the case came in for criticism after he handed conditional discharges to the women and commented that they had “well learned” their lesson.
His impartiality was then called into question when it emerged he had previously ‘liked’ the LinkedIn message from a barrister 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 – justice will be coming for you.”
(While I was making this update, commenter John independently brought up the topic of Judge Ikram’s record.)
I’ve seen it said that John Murphy pleaded not guilty while Victoria did plead guilty, so that may have had some bearing on the severity of the sentence. Pull the other one.
She changed her plea from Not Guilty to Guilty at the last possible moment.
Also, John Murphy is male and Victoria female, and men are routinely given harsher sentences than women for similar crimes with similar criminal histories. At least in the US, I’m assuming British justice is similar.
A question – do British courts accept plea bargains in the manner of US courts (that is guilty pleas with a proposed sentence agreed to by both prosecution and defense)? In the US it would be unremarkable that a guilty plea would get a lesser sentence than if the case went to trial, although much of the sentence reduction comes from the plea being to lesser charges than what would have been brought at trial (say pleading guilty to drug possession rather than face distribution charges). This creates its own abuses (prosecutors who grossly overcharge a defendant to induce a plea to a lesser charge that would be more appropriate), but you really can’t compare sentences following conviction at trial to plea sentences in the US.
“pay Farage a massive victim surcharge of £154” No, it does not go to Farage but into a central pool. Not sure if he will receive anything; maybe his dry cleaning bill.
Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram CBE who handed out this lenient sentence has made quite a name for himself in recent years. He is arguably best known for acquitting Sarah Jane Baker* who screamed “if you see a TERF punch them in the fecking face” when addressing a London rally.
* Baker is the subject of a life sentence for the attempted murder of a fellow inmate she attacked when in prison serving a sentence for kidnapping and torturing her stepmother’s 19-year-old brother. Baker was recalled to prison following the events at the rally. bbc news 31/8/23.
I wonder if he will preside over the forthcoming trial on 20th January of Councillor Ricky “cut their throats” Jones.
Wiki mentions several other controversies including:-
On 13 February 2024 Ikram, presiding over a case of three demonstrators carrying or wearing images appearing to glorify Hamas (the political and military movement governing in the Gaza Strip, and designated in the UK as a terrorist organization), found them guilty but let them off with conditional discharges, saying that “emotions ran very high on this issue”. This judgement was subject to extensive criticism in the press.[10][11] Contrast was drawn to a 20-week sentence he handed down against a man for sharing memes mocking George Floyd, the severity of which he boasted about in a talk to visiting American law students.
John, your comment and my update to the post crossed.
Natalie,
Today’s Lotus Eaters podcast makes the observation that what would normally be three high public interest trials namely those of Ricky Jones, Anthony Essen and Axel Rudakabana are all apparently due to commence on the 20th January, a day when the worlds media will be 100% focused on events in Washington DC (and presumably will remain so for some time afterwards).
The sentencing disparity is likely due to society’s strong feelings that milkshakes are crap, but you ought not waste eggs.
“No, it does not go to Farage but into a central pool. Not sure if he will receive anything; maybe his dry cleaning bill.”
The BBC article specifically says that Bowen must pay Farage £150 compensation (presumably for his dry cleaning bill/damage to his clothing) and also pay £450 court costs.
“Following her sentencing, Farage posted on social media: “We now live in a country where you can assault a Member of Parliament and not go to prison.”
We’ve long lived in countries where one can assault, with injury, ordinary citizens and not be confined. Welcome to life, MPs.
Farage wasn’t a member of Parliament when it happened, though. He was a candidate. Anyway, why should MPs have any special protection? Assault is assault, the sentencing should be the same regardless of who the victim is.
The political bias is obvious – the courts have been intellectually corrupted, certain political opinions are considered good by judges and other legal officials, and certain other political (and cultural) opinions are considered bad and worthy of punishment. In defence of the judges – the Statutes are also, now, structurally biased.
Say or write something “right wing” (say “Islamophobic”) and you may find yourself in prison, for years, after a Drum Head trial – or being de facto forced to plead guilty “if you plead NOT guilty you will get a much harsher sentence – remember the Prime Minister has declared you guilty on television, so the trial is just a formality” – suddenly there is no “log jam” in the courts or prison system (no “we have to let people go”) – not if you are “right wing”.
Put up “racist” stickers (even such things as “small hats, big problems” – which is supposed to be directed against people of my own ethnic group) and you may get two years in prison – put up Revolutionary Communist Party stickers (and large posters), i.e. stickers that support a movement (Marxism) that murdered more than 100 million people (see “The Black Book of Communism” and the historical works of such people as Robert Conquest and Frank Dikoetter) and wishes to murder vast numbers of people in the future, and you will not get a day in prison. “Revolutionary Communist” is clearly a demand for Revolution – not the democratic process.
Also note that spreading disinformation on the internet (such as “the right are going to organise a 100 events on such-and-such a date – let us go and fight them”) and organising riots – is just fine IF you are on the left, say a Labour Party council.
Even going to such an “anti racist” event (pushed by a local council – but not yours, you live on the other side of London) and saying that right wingers should have their throats slit – “slit their throats” you say in a speech to the mob – inciting murder. Are you kept in prison (at the mercy of gangs) while awaiting trial? No you are not. Are you even charged with inciting murder – which is what you did. Again, no you are not – you get a lesser charge.
The original “disinformation” was that a murderer of three little girls was a follower of Islam and had committed the murders as an act of terrorism – people were sent to prison, for years, for spreading this “disinformation”.
Was it “disinformation” or was it, largely, the truth? I express no opinion on this matter.
By the way – the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a trained lawyer with years of experience, he knew exactly what he was doing when he declared the supposed “right wingers” guilty before their trials, talked about how they were to be punished and-so-on.
As for “disinformation” the left, including “Hope Not Hate” (whose “charitable” arm is part financed by taxpayers and whose leadership is very much in partnership with the government), pushed the story that Muslim women had suffered acid attacks from “right wingers” – it was a lie, and it was a lie designed to stir up violence.
But the head of “Hope Not Hate” (and the others trying to stir up violence with leftist lies) was NOT sent to prison.
Alex and staghounds: In my view, you’re both absolutely right that the general public ought to have the same level of penalty associated with assault upon them as for an MP (or prominent non-MP politician).
However, I’d argue that a harsher sentence than normal for assault should be considered here for several reasons.
Firstly, reasons of motive, which I’d argue are relevant in two regards here; one, targetting someone because the attacker disagreed with their beliefs–which, for other specific examples of beliefs in the UK, would be considered a hate crime; and two, shameless publicity seeking (i.e. selfish personal aggrandisement). Both of those warrant consideration as factors we should explicitly want to deter.
Secondly, the context; this attack took place after there had been extensive publicity around assaults with caustic liquids thrown at victims’ faces, and indeed after certain reprehensible individuals called for attacks on politicians–and Farage in particular–by such methods. It would be naive to think the attacker didn’t take this into account when planning this, and this was clearly meant to induce fear that the substance was harmful. Again, I believe this is behaviour we should want to deter.
Thirdly, the attack was targetted at an individual the assailant knew would not physically respond. Unlike, for example, John Prescott in his prime, who might have landed a punch on his attacker, Farage wouldn’t have hit back, and I would contend any reasonable person would have assumed that.
Consider the scenarios where a person might choose to throw a pint in someone else’s face in a bar or nightclub. We naturally consider that most people are deterred from thus drenching, for example, a large and apparently uncouth bruiser–because they anticipate immediate and painful retaliation. Whereas if the target is a fellow of smaller stature, or someone with an arm in a sling, or in a wheelchair–the attacker chooses in those cases to target the person unlikely to cause them pain. And we consider that attacker to be more reprehensible in so doing–a bully, in that context at least.
Our system should punish both instances, but I think it reasonable to suggest a harsher penalty for the attack on the defenceless, in lieu of there being a natural deterrent as there is in the former case.
All those reasons could apply to anyone thus attacked, politician or not. Each alone ought to warrant stiff sentencing–combined, they should mean that the courts ought to have thrown the book at this intolerant, hateful idiot. Clearly this judge wished to send a message of a different sort.
anon – also remember the context.
Establishment Media people had already been saying that Mr Farage should have battery acid thrown in his face – incitement to Grievous Bodily Harm, to (at the very “least”) blind Mr Farage. And no establishment person who said this was punished.
Everyone knew that – so when Mr Farage felt the liquid hit him “is this acid?” would have been his first thought.
Sadly the judge, in private, is, most likely, amused by all this – just as establishment people were amused when Mr Farage was in an air crash, which could have easily killed him.
The establishment say they are “nice people” filled with “compassion” – but people who say that, about themselves, are normally the opposite of these things.
I am reminded of a man, whose birthday it is today, who keeps saying, and ordering other people to say, how “humble” he is – only a very arrogant man would say this about himself, or order others to say it about him.
His treatment of people who have devoted their lives to the organisation of which he is in charge, treating them very badly indeed for the “offense” of actually believing in and teaching the doctrines this organisation says it stands for, shows what sort of man he really is.