High Court Told Burning a Quran Is Disorderly in Key UK Case

Published: 18 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

The High Court in London heard compelling legal arguments this week as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) challenged a lower court’s decision to overturn a conviction against a man who burned a copy of the Quran in a busy central London street last year, telling judges that such an act is “in itself disorderly” and should not have been dismissed as lawful expression. The case has reignited debate over the limits of free speech, public order and protest rights in the United Kingdom, particularly where inflammatory acts intersect with religious sensitivities and public safety.

The case centres on Hamit Coskun, a 51‑year‑old man who set alight a Quran outside the Turkish embassy in Knightsbridge on 13 February 2025, shouting “f*** Islam” and “Quran is burning” as he protested against what he described as political and religious issues. At his original trial, Westminster Magistrates’ Court found him guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence — specifically, using disorderly behaviour “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress,” under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. He was fined £240 plus a surcharge.

Coskun successfully appealed that conviction in October 2025, with Mr Justice Bennathan at Southwark Crown Court ruling that his action did not meet the legal threshold for disorderly conduct in context, and emphasising that freedom of expression must encompass provocative or offensive speech, even where it deeply disturbs or shocks others. The judge noted that there is no blasphemy offence in English law, and that the mere fact that many find the act “desperately upsetting and offensive” does not automatically make it criminal.

However, the CPS has launched an appeal against that acquittal, and in a hearing before the High Court on Tuesday, its barristers argued that the lower court was wrong to conclude the conduct was not disorderly. David Perry KC, representing the CPS, told Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Obi that burning a book in a London street is inherently disorderly, and that the act is even more so when the book is a holy text, regardless of religion. The prosecution sought to have the case remitted back to the Crown Court for reconsideration or to clarify how public order law should treat such provocative public demonstrations.

The CPS also highlighted the location and circumstances of Coskun’s protest — in a busy and residential area between Knightsbridge and Hyde Park — arguing that his choice of venue and accompanying offensive slogans made the act a foreseeable source of harassment or distress to others, including those of the Muslim faith. The prosecution has characterised the actions as going beyond legitimate political expression and crossing into conduct that undermines public order.

Coskun, an atheist, has resisted the appeal and attended the High Court hearing in London. He has argued — supported by groups such as the National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union — that his protest was a political expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards freedom of expression, including speech that may offend, shock or disturb. Critics of the CPS’s challenge have warned that upholding the appeal could effectively bring back blasphemy‑like restrictions by the back door, chilling legitimate protest and dissent.

The case has also drawn wider attention because of its implications for how public order offences are defined in British law — whether an act can be intrinsically disorderly by its very nature, or whether disorder must be judged by its context, intent and actual impact on those around it. Opponents of the CPS appeal have argued that equating the burning of a book with disorder risks undermining fundamental speech rights, while supporters of the appeal stress the state’s duty to prevent provocative actions that could lead to public disorder or targeted harassment.

During the hearing, the CPS also pointed to the violent reaction Coskun received at the time — when he was attacked by an onlooker who told him he was defending his religion — as evidence of the foreseeable social impact of the act. While the violence against Coskun was unlawful, prosecutors argue it demonstrates how inflammatory the protest was, saying that a reasonable person could foresee the risk of harassment, alarm or distress.

Coskun has been offered Home Office accommodation due to threats made against him since his protest, and the legal battle has continued to evolve amid strong opinions on both sides about how British law balances free expression with social harmony. The High Court reserved judgment at the end of Tuesday’s hearing, with judges expected to decide at a future date whether the CPS’s appeal should succeed and how the law should be interpreted going forward.

The outcome of this case could shape how public demonstrations involving religious symbols are regulated in the UK, and whether actions that deeply offend religious communities can be treated as disorderly conduct, even when framed by protestors as political speech. Public order laws remain a contested territory where principles of free speech, tolerance and social order are continually negotiated in the courts.

Read More At>>