Quran burning case: UK court overturns conviction of man in free speech ruling

The ruling, hailed by free speech advocates as a landmark moment, has reignited debate over the boundaries between lawful expression and hate speech in the United Kingdom.

Hamit Coskun, a 51-year-old man, was fined earlier this year for setting fire to a copy of the Quran during a protest outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge.

Delivering the judgment on Friday, Justice Bennathan of Southwark Crown Court ruled that while the act was “deeply offensive” to many, it still fell under the protection of the right to free expression.

“We live in a liberal democracy,” the judge said, adding: “Freedom of speech includes the ability to express opinions that disturb, offend or shock. That is the price we all pay for the same liberty we enjoy," BBC reported.

Coskun had been found guilty in June by Westminster Magistrates’ Court of a religiously aggravated public order offence and fined £240 for holding a burning Quran aloft and shouting anti-Islamic remarks in Rutland Gardens on 13 February.

Justice Bennathan, however, concluded that criminalising such expression risked eroding a key democratic right. “Many Muslims will understandably find this act profoundly distressing,” he said, “but offence alone cannot justify state censorship,” the BBC report said.

The February protest turned violent when Moussa Kadri, 59, emerged from a nearby building armed with a knife and slashed at Coskun, later telling police he had acted to defend his faith.

Kadri was given a 20-week prison term, suspended for 18 months, at the same court last month.

Speaking after his acquittal, the Turkish-born Coskun said he had moved to Britain “to speak openly about the dangers of radical Islam,” adding that the verdict reassured him that he could continue “educating the British public about my beliefs.”

Political and public reactions:

The appeal hearing drew political attention, with Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick observing proceedings. Jenrick later said he found Coskun’s actions “distasteful” but “not criminal,” BBC reported.

Civil liberties campaigners hailed the ruling as a significant victory for freedom of expression, warning that the earlier conviction risked reviving blasphemy laws in all but name.

Those laws were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland in 2021.

The Free Speech Union, which helped fund Coskun’s appeal, said the outcome reaffirmed that “anti-religious demonstrations, however offensive, must be tolerated in a free society.”

“If the conviction had been upheld,” said Lord Young of Acton, the union’s director, “it would have signalled to extremists that violent reactions can silence criticism. The court has rightly ruled the opposite," BBC reported.

The National Secular Society echoed that view, describing Coskun’s protest as “a lawful act of political dissent” and the decision as “a crucial win for free speech in modern Britain.”