Burning Koran upsetting but not a crime, says judge in ‘victory for free speech’

Campaigners have hailed a successful appeal against the conviction of a man who burned a Koran in London as “an important victory for freedom of expression”.

Hamit Coskun was found guilty earlier this year of a religiously aggravated public order offence having shouted “f*** Islam” while holding the flaming religious text aloft outside the Turkish consulate in England’s capital city in February.

But, backed by free speech campaigners, the 51-year-old has had his conviction overturned, with a judge finding in his favour at Southwark Crown Court on Friday.

Mr Justice Bennathan said while burning a book of such religious importance might be something “many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive”, the right to freedom of expression “must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb”.

Campaigners, as well as Conservative MP Robert Jenrick, had argued Mr Coskun’s prosecution had been an attempt to bring back blasphemy law “by the back door”.

In his ruling, the judge said: “There is no offence of blasphemy in our law. Burning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive.

“The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset.

“The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.”

He said Mr Coskun had acted alone and had not aimed his “political speech or conduct” at a person.

The judge added: “We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so.

“The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us.”

Turkey-born Mr Coskun, who is half-Kurdish and half-Armenian and lives in England, had been convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress”, motivated by “hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam”, contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section five of the Public Order Act 1986.

His appeal case was funded by the National Secular Society (NSS) and the Free Speech Union (FSU).

The union said Friday’s ruling sent a message that “anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated”.

Mr Jenrick, who had attended court on Thursday to support Mr Coskun, said the ruling was an “important victory for free speech”.

Posting on X after the judgement, the shadow justice secretary said: “I didn’t like what Mr Coskun did; burning a religious text was not pleasant.

“But it was also never criminal. So, this is an important victory for free speech. Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 20 years ago.

“It was disgraceful that the authorities attempted to re-create them by the back door.”

Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland in 2021.

In Northern Ireland such laws date back to the early 19th century and, while rarely used, blasphemy and blasphemous libel remain offences.

In a written statement after the ruling, Mr Coskun said he had come to England “to be able to speak freely about the dangers of radical Islam” and was now “reassured that – despite many troubling developments – I will now be free to educate the British public about my beliefs”.

Lord Toby Young of Acton, director of the FSU, said he was “delighted” with the outcome.

He referred to the case of Moussa Kadri, who attacked Coskun during the incident outside the consulate.

Kadri was spared jail last month having pleaded guilty to assault and having a bladed article in a public place.

Prosecutors in that case said Kadri had come out of a residential building and told Mr Coskun “I’m going to kill you”, before returning and slashing at him with a knife, later telling police he was protecting his religion.

Kadri was handed a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months.

Lord Young said: “Had the verdict (in Mr Coskun’s case) been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.

“Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message – that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.”

The NSS said the judgment was “an important victory for freedom of expression”, describing Mr Coskun’s protest as a “lawful act of political dissent”.

Its chief executive, Stephen Evans, said: “Today’s decision reaffirms the vital principle that free speech protects the right to offend, shock, or disturb – even when it challenges deeply held religious beliefs. England and Wales rightly abolished its blasphemy laws more than a decade ago.”

He added: “Crucially, the judgment also draws a clear line between attacks on individuals and criticism of ideas. This distinction is essential to a healthy democracy, and this case should serve as a turning point for it to be better understood and reflected in public policy.”

Humanists UK said the case had “highlighted gaps in the law that could allow vital free speech protections to fall by the wayside” and pledged to keep campaigning “to uphold the fullest freedom of expression laws limited only to prevent harm to others”.

The Crown Prosecution Service said it respected the court’s decision.

A spokesperson said: “The role of the Crown Prosecution Service was not to decide whether Mr Coskun’s actions were right or wrong but to make a factual judgment as to whether there was enough evidence to prosecute.

“In this case we concluded there was enough evidence to bring this case to the court to decide on and we respect their decision.”