Quran -

Quran Burning Case: UK High Court Considers Free Speech vs. Religious Offense

The UK High Court recently heard arguments regarding the conviction of Hamit Coskun, a 51-year-old man who was initially found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offense after burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London on February 13, 2025. The case raises complex questions about the boundaries of free speech and the protection of religious sensibilities.

The Initial Conviction and Appeal

Coskun was convicted in June 2025 for using disorderly behavior likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress, motivated by hostility towards Muslims. However, Mr. Justice Bennathan at Southwark Crown Court overturned the conviction in October, leading the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to launch an appeal. The CPS argues that the judge erred in determining Coskun’s actions were not “disorderly.”

Arguments for Upholding the Conviction

David Perry KC, representing the CPS, argued that burning a book in a public area of London, particularly a holy text, is inherently disorderly. He emphasized that the act transcends legitimate freedom of expression and crosses into criminal conduct. “Burning a book in a residential or commercial part of central London… is in itself disorderly and even more so when the book is a holy text, whatever the religion,” Perry stated. The CPS further contends that Coskun’s actions were not a legitimate exercise of free speech but rather a deliberate act of provocation.

Coskun’s Defense and the Incident

Coskun, who identifies as an atheist, reportedly shouted slogans such as “Islam is religion of terrorism” and “Quran is burning” during his protest in Rutland Gardens. His demonstration sparked a violent reaction, with an individual emerging from a nearby building and attacking him with a knife, claiming he was defending his religion. The attacker received a suspended jail sentence in September. The CPS argues that Coskun’s actions effectively provoked this attack.

The Legal Framework

The initial conviction was based on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section five of the Public Order Act 1986, which address religiously aggravated public order offenses. These laws aim to protect individuals from harassment, alarm, and distress motivated by religious hostility. The case hinges on interpreting the scope of these laws and balancing them against the right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Home Office Protection and Ongoing Legal Battle

Following his protest, Coskun received accommodation from the Home Office due to threats made against him. He is currently resisting the CPS’s appeal, and the case concluded before Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Obi. A judgment is expected at a later date. This case is expected to set a precedent for similar cases involving religious expression and public order in the UK.

Quran