A man who burned the Koran in public should have had his conviction upheld because burning a religious text ‘is in itself disorderly’, the High Court has heard.
Hamit Coskun, 51, held a flaming copy of the Islamic text aloft and shouted ‘f*** Islam’ outside the Turkish embassy in central London on February 13 last year.
The atheist was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence last June for the controversial protest on Rutland Gardens in Knightsbridge, near Hyde Park.
But he successfully appealed, supported by free speech campaigners, and saw it overturned by Mr Justice Bennathan at Southwark Crown Court in October, who said ‘blasphemy’ is not a crime.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is now appealing that decision at the High Court and asks that the case is sent back to the Crown Court for reconsideration.
Barristers told a hearing on Tuesday the judge was wrong last autumn to find Mr Coskun’s behaviour not ‘disorderly’ and, if it was, unlikely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Coskun, who is half-Armenian, half-Kurdish and Turkish-born, resists the legal challenge and attended the hearing before Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Obi.
It concluded on Tuesday, with the judgement due at a later date.
Hamit Coskun, 51, held a flaming copy of the Islamic text aloft (pictured) and shouted ‘f*** Islam’ outside the Turkish embassy in central London on February 13 last year
The atheist was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence in June for the controversial protest on Rutland Gardens in Knightsbridge, near Hyde Park. Pictured: Mr Coskun arriving at court on Tuesday
David Perry KC, for the CPS, told the court: ‘Burning a book in a residential or commercial part of central London, between Knightsbridge and Hyde Park, is in itself disorderly and even more so when the book is a holy text, whatever the religion.’
In written submissions, the barrister said Mr Coskun’s actions ‘did not involve an exercise of legitimate freedom of expression’.
He said his behaviour instead ‘crossed the border into criminal conduct and was deliberately intended to be disorderly’.
Mr Coskun, who is an atheist, also shouted, ‘Islam is religion of terrorism’, and, ‘Koran is burning’, during his protest.
He later said he burned the Koran to highlight how Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s constitutionally secular government had become an ‘Islamist regime’.
He was later attacked by others, including a Muslim man named Moussa Kadri, 59, who slashed at him with a knife, later telling police he was protecting his religion.
Mr Perry told the court this attack was ‘effectively provoked’ by Mr Coskun.
He said the CPS’s case was neither ‘an attempt to introduce an offence of blasphemy’, nor ‘an impermissible encroachment’ on Mr Coskun’s right to free speech.
Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland in 2021, but blasphemy and blasphemous libel remain offences in Northern Ireland.
But in written submissions on behalf of Mr Coskun, Tim Owen KC said the CPS’s appeal was ‘unarguable’.
He said it ‘merely seeks to rehash arguments’ that ‘ultimately failed to persuade the court of the respondent’s guilt’.
The lawyer continued: ‘This ill-judged, frivolous attempt to convert what is a question of fact into one of law should be rejected.’
Speaking ahead of the hearing, Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society (NSS), which funded Mr Coskun’s appeal along with the Free Speech Union (FSU), said the CPS’s approach ‘casts those subjected to violence for offending religious sensibilities as the wrongdoer’.
He continued, of this ‘stark inversion of justice’: ‘It is not the role of prosecutors to determine what citizens should think or feel about contentious expression.
But he successfully appealed, supported by free speech campaigners, and saw it overturned by Mr Justice Bennathan at Southwark Crown Court in October, who said ‘blasphemy’ is not a crime. Pictured: Mr Coskun outside court in October
‘The law should never be used to enforce religious orthodoxy.’
Mr Coskun has been given accommodation by the Home Office since his protest due to the number and severity of threats made to him in its wake.
At a High Court hearing earlier this month, Mr Justice Linden said Mr Coskun had requested this from the government.
He did so, he said, because his ‘life has been threatened on a number of occasions’ and there had been ‘several acts of violence against him’.
Mr Coskun also asked that the housing come with ‘certain conditions’ so ‘he could live there safely’, the court heard.
Under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Home Office can offer accommodation to current or former asylum seekers, or those who have had claims rejected, which can be provided ‘subject to other conditions’.
Mr Coskun, who came to the UK from Turkey, applied for asylum in Britain after his controversial protest and is still awaiting a decision.
He was originally charged and 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’.
He was fined £240, with District Judge John McGarva stating he had a ‘deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers’.
The judge also rejected the idea this outcome was ‘an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law’.
But Mr Justice Bennathan ruled in October the right to freedom of expression ‘must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb’.
He 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.’
Mr Justice Bennathan said Mr Coskun had acted alone and had not aimed his ‘political speech or conduct’ at a person.
In a written statement after the judgment, 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’.
The FSU at the time the ruling sent a message that ‘anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated’.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is now appealing that decision at the High Court and asks that the case is sent back to the Crown Court for reconsideration. Pictured: Mr Coskun, right, with Reform MP Robert Jenrick, left, outside court in October
Its director Lord Young said: ‘Had the verdict been allowed to stand it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists 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.’
NSS boss Stephen Evans added: ‘Mr Coskun’s protest was a lawful act of political dissent.
‘There is no need to condone the nature of his demonstration – what is important is that it was not criminal.’
Shadow justice secretary turned Reform MP Robert Jenrick said while he did not agree with what Mr Coskun had done, he didn’t think ‘it was a crime’.
Announcing in November it would appeal, the CPS said: ‘There is no law to prosecute people for “blasphemy” and burning a religious text on its own is not a criminal act – our case remains that Hamit Coskun’s words, choice of location and burning of the (Koran) amounted to disorderly behaviour, and that at the time he demonstrated hostility towards a religious or racial group, which is a crime.
‘We have appealed the decision, and the judge has agreed to state a case for the High Court to consider.’
The High Court hearing on Tuesday comes as US state department officials are said to be preparing to help Mr Coskun in the event he loses his appeal.
The case is understood to be one of several regarding free speech that the Trump administration has ‘made note of’.
Mr Coskun has previously revealed he originally came to Britain because of fears over Islamic terrorists – but fears he may have to flee amid the threats against him.
He told The Telegraph: ‘For me, as the victim of Islamic terrorism, I cannot remain silent.
‘I may be forced to flee the UK and move to the USA, where President Trump has stood for free speech and against Islamic extremism.
‘If I have to do so, then, to me, the UK will have effectively fallen to Islamism and the speech codes that it wishes to impose on the non-Muslim world.’
Mr Coskun said if he comes out of the appeal process on top, he will resume his ‘campaign’ to oppose political Islam.
If not, however, he said it would mean there was ‘no longer’ free speech in Britain.
As the debate rages, in this case, over what constitutes legitimate criticism of Islam, Labour is considering a draft definition of anti-Muslim hatred which does not include the term ‘Islamophobia’.
It was reported in December ministers were circulating the draft form of words put forward by a working group for consultation.
This suggested definition would see anti-Muslim hatred referred to as ‘anti-Muslim hostility’, instead of ‘Islamophobia’.
Free speech activists had warned using the term Islamophobia risks outlawing criticism of the religion itself.
But FSU head Lord Young believes an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility could still infringe on free speech.
‘The danger of any definition, however carefully drawn, is that it will make people think twice before referring to Muslims doing anything wrong, prioritising them above all other faiths,’ he said.
‘Labour’s watered-down “Islamophobia” definition will still undermine free speech. The UK already has laws to protect British Muslims – and every other religious group.
‘Inevitably, by rolling out a non-statutory definition of Islamophobia, the police will feel obliged to investigate reports of anti-Muslim hatred that clearly aren’t criminal offences.’
A working group was set up in February last year to provide the government with a working definition of anti-Muslim hatred, or Islamophobia.
They submitted their proposal to the government in October.
The definition would be non-statutory, which means it would not be set in law or legally binding.
But it would provide a template for public bodies to adopt, and guide the government and other organisation on what constitutes unacceptable treatment of Muslims.