High Court upholds acquittal for Quran burning

Hamit Coskun, who burned a Quran outside the Turkish Embassy in London, has had his acquittal for religiously motivated harassment, alarm or distress upheld by the High Court. Humanists UK welcomes the outcome, but remains concerned that public order laws can be used to criminalise acts that cause religious offence without having sufficient safeguards to protect the right to freedom of expression. 

The story so far

In February 2025, Hamit Coskun, a half-Kurdish and half-Armenian man from Turkey, burned a Quran outside the Turkish Embassy in London. He said he did it in protest against the President of Turkey for failing to uphold Turkey’s secular constitution. Notably, Coskun was attacked with a knife during his protest, for which he was taken to hospital before being arrested. Humanists UK regularly cautions that blasphemy-motivated extremism and violence are growing problems, and that such violence is inevitably encouraged when prohibitions on ‘blasphemy’ are legitimised by authorities.

Nonetheless, in June he was convicted of a public disorder offence, likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress, that was motivated at least in part by hostility towards members of a religious group under section 31(1)(c) of the CDA, the religiously-aggravated version of section 5 of the POA. 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, Westminster Magistrates’ Court 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. We disagreed with that decision and were therefore pleased when his conviction was overturned on appeal by Southwark Crown Court in October 2025.

Humanists UK unequivocally condemns acts of religious hatred and harassment, and finds the defendant’s prejudicial views about Muslims expressed in the police interview to be abhorrent. Nevertheless, given that Coskun did not express these views publicly in relation to the incident, the charges against him raise serious concerns. In particular, we consider that, in an illustrative case of an ex-Muslim, who may hold prejudicial views about their former community because of their experiences, may find themselves more liable to conviction in a case like this, even if those views are not publicly expressed.

The latest judgment

The Director of Public Prosecution’s case rested on the premise that, based on the evidence, the Crown Court could not rationally acquit Coskun – and that the Crown Court should have found that his actions were disorderly, and likely to cause harassment alarm or distress. The High Court disagreed. 

Further, although this was not the question under consideration, the High Court in handing down its judgment today stated that behaviour may be both ‘disorderly’ and ‘likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress’ and yet still not criminal because it is ‘reasonable’. It went on to observe that caselaw confirms that ‘legitimate protest can be offensive at least to some – and on occasions must be, if it is to have impact’.

A Humanists UK spokesperson said: 

‘We are relieved to see Hamit Coskun’s acquittal upheld. We were extremely disappointed that the DPP continued to pursue this case, but we hope the matter is now settled once and for all. Blasphemy laws were repealed from England and Wales in 2008. The Government has assured us that they have not returned, and the High Court now agrees.

‘This case highlights the need for better legal protections for those accused of blasphemy, and we will be offering our expertise to the Government to help make that happen.’