Man convicted over burning Koran was ‘using right to free speech’, court hears

A man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London was using his human right to free speech, an appeal hearing has been told.

Hamit Coskun was found guilty in June of a religiously aggravated public order offence, having shouted “f*** Islam”, “Islam is religion of terrorism” and “Koran is burning” while holding the flaming religious text aloft outside the Turkish consulate on February 13 2025.

Before travelling to London, the 51-year-old wrote posts on social media detailing his plan and saying it was to “protest the Islamist government” of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom he claimed “has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime”, the court heard.

He is appealing against his conviction under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which criminalises acting in a “disorderly” manner, or displaying material that is likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” to others, as well as the finding his actions were religiously aggravated.

Tim Owen KC, speaking on behalf of Coskun, told the appeal hearing at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday his client’s conduct was the legal exercise of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and was a “perfectly legitimate expression of his opinion on Islam”.

“Mr Coskun making that protest outside the Turkish consulate as he did was attacking the institution of Islam, and the book,” Mr Owen told the court.

“He was not at any point saying: ‘F*** Muslims’ or individualising.”

Philip McGhee, appearing on behalf of the prosecution, told the hearing Coskun’s action was “motivated, at least in part, by hostility towards followers of Islam”.

Mr McGhee quoted social media posts written by Coskun prior to the incident, which said: “Koran is a book that orders terror, permits plunder, rape, paedophilia, and does not recognise the right to life for anyone outside the Islamic faith” and “Islam is a terrorist ideology”.

While he burned the holy book outside the Turkish consulate, Coskun was attacked by a man called Moussa Kadri, who came out of a residential building and told Coskun “I’m going to kill you”, before returning and slashing at him with a knife.

Kadri later told police he was protecting his religion.

Mr McGhee said Coskun must have been aware that his actions may be disorderly by the time that Mr Kadri emerged from the neighbouring building, and that Mr Kadri was “evidently distressed” by Coskun’s actions before he went on to assault him.

The prosecution added that “any passing member of the public concerned with the preservation of peace and tolerance and the avoidance of religious tension, as well as any follower of Islam, would likely be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the appellant’s disorderly behaviour.”

Coskun also made generalising comments during his police interview that were hostile towards Muslim, the court heard – including: “All these Muslim people have been raping young children, young girls – every day, I would read.

“99% of those rapists are Muslim. 150 years later they want to change the demographic state of this country because they keep breeding more people.

“They will use violence.”

Mr Justice Bennathan told the court: “These are profoundly sensitive issues.

“People say stuff that is stupid, ignorant, offensive, upsetting – people say stuff that they shouldn’t say.

“But to then go on to say that that’s a crime is an entirely different proposition.”

The National Secular Society (NSS), which is funding Coskun’s legal fees alongside the Free Speech Union (FSU), criticised Coskun’s conviction as a repurposing of the public order act into “a form of modern blasphemy law”.

Blasphemy was abolished as a common law offence in England and Wales in 2008.

The NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said the right to free speech “must include the right to offend”.

“We’re supporting Hamit Coskun’s appeal not to endorse his actions, but to defend a vital principle – that free speech must include the right to offend,” he said.

“Coskun’s conviction repurposes public order laws in order to punish offensive expression – using them in a way that goes far beyond what Parliament ever intended, and which risks transforming them into a form of modern blasphemy law.

“Coskun’s peaceful protest caused no harm, yet he was convicted because others chose to react with violence.

“We believe this judgment sets the bar far too low for when the state can interfere with the right to free expression.

“If we allow offence – or the threat of violence – to determine the limits of expression, we hand extremists a veto over free speech itself.”

Turkey-born Coskun, who is half-Kurdish and half-Armenian and lives in Lincolnshire, was originally charged with intent to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” against “the religious institution of Islam”, the NSS said.

Following interventions by the NSS, the Crown Prosecution Service said the wording of the charge was “incorrectly applied” and substituted a new charge.

Last month, Coskun’s attacker Moussa Kadri, 59, was spared jail after pleading guilty to assault and having a bladed article in a public place.

The judge said he will be returning his ruling on Friday.

The shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick attended Southwark Crown Court in support of Coskun.

He said in a short statement outside the court building: “I don’t agree with what Mr Coskun did but I don’t believe it’s a crime.

“Parliament made a very important decision 20 years ago to abolish our blasphemy laws and we can’t allow them to be re-created by the back door, inadvertently, by our court service.

“Free speech is under threat in our country and we have to defend it at all costs, and that sometimes means defending those who do things you won’t condone yourself.

“I very much hope that Mr Coskun is found not guilty tomorrow.”