Not guilty! Conviction of man who burned Quran overturned on appeal

A man who burnt a Quran outside the Turkish Embassy in London has had his conviction for religiously motivated harassment, alarm, or distress overturned on appeal by Southwark Crown Court. Humanists UK has welcomed the new verdict as a huge victory for free speech and a blow against the revival of blasphemy laws in England and Wales by the back door.

In June, Hamit Coskun, a half-Kurdish and half-Armenian man from Turkey, was convicted by Westminster Magistrates Court for burning a copy of the Quran while shouting disparaging remarks about Islam within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress. The judge stated that the burning of a religious book was not in and of itself unlawful, even if it is offensive to some. But the location of the burning, outside the Turkish Embassy, and Coskun’s associated actions, made his behaviour disorderly.

Coskun was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence under Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act. His actions were found to be motivated at least in part by hostility to Muslims due to comments he made in his police interview that were prejudicial towards Muslims. As a result, the judge found that the defendant had a ‘deep-seated’ hatred of not just Islam but also its followers, and that it was not possible to separate the two. Humanists UK disagreed with that decision, and now, so has the Crown Court.

Considering an illustrative case of an ex-Muslim who may hold prejudicial views about their former community because of their experiences, Humanists UK was deeply concerned that ex-Muslims may find themselves more liable to conviction for voicing views critical of Islam while holding prejudicial views about their former community, even if those latter views were not publicly expressed.

The latest judgment

When handing down his judgment today, the judge affirmed that the burning of a Quran is not a crime in and of itself as there is no actual victim of hostility on a racial or religious basis. In this case, Coskun’s conduct was found not to be aimed at a specific person or specific people. The Turkish Embassy is a known political building and is therefore a reasonable place to protest. The defendant was by himself so could not be said to be intimidating. No passersby were scared into running away. Further, after Coskun burned the Quran he was attacked by a man who took offence to his actions. The criminal behaviour of that man was found not to make Coskun’s actions criminal.

A Humanists UK spokesperson said:

‘We are delighted and relieved to see Hamit’s conviction overturned. While we do not agree with the appellant’s prejudicial views about Muslims, he did not express these at the time of the act for which he was previously charged and the judge has now found he shouldn’t have been convicted.

‘We are concerned that this case has highlighted gaps in the law that could allow vital free speech protections to fall by the wayside. We will continue to campaign to uphold the fullest freedom of expression laws limited only to prevent harm to others.’