UK Court SHOCKER: Quran Burner Acquittal Upheld

A beautifully crafted wooden stand holding an open Quran with prayer beads

British courts deliver a stunning free speech victory by upholding the acquittal of a man stabbed for burning a Quran in protest, rejecting government overreach that echoed blasphemy laws.

Story Highlights

High Court on February 27, 2026, dismissed Crown Prosecution Service appeal, affirming Hamit Coskun’s acquittal for his 2025 Quran-burning protest against Turkish secularism erosion.
Coskun, a Turkish resident in England, was stabbed in the hand during the protest outside the Turkish Embassy, yet faced religiously aggravated charges based on private police comments.
Secular groups like National Secular Society and Free Speech Union funded his defense, hailing the ruling as a rejection of “backdoor blasphemy” prosecutions.
Ruling clarifies UK public order laws protect reasonable protests, even offensive ones, balancing expression against alarm or distress.
Case closed with Coskun under Home Office protection amid threats, spotlighting violence risks from religious extremism.

Protest Sparks Legal Battle

Hamit Coskun burned a Quran outside London’s Turkish Embassy on February 13, 2025, to protest Turkey’s President failing to uphold secularism. He shouted anti-Islam statements during the act. An attacker stabbed his hand, requiring hospitalization. Police arrested him afterward. Westminster Magistrates’ Court convicted him in June 2025 under section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for a religiously aggravated public order offense. The charge stemmed from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, citing his police interview comments showing hostility toward Muslims, though not voiced publicly at the protest.

Appeals Restore Justice

Southwark Crown Court acquitted Coskun on appeal in October 2025, deeming his actions a reasonable protest despite potential disorder. The Crown Prosecution Service appealed to the High Court in February 2026. On February 27, 2026, Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Obi dismissed the appeal. They ruled the Crown Court rationally concluded the behavior, though possibly disorderly, did not cross into criminality as legitimate expression. This upheld protections post-2008 blasphemy law repeal in England and Wales.

Humanists UK expressed relief, noting public order laws need better free expression safeguards to avoid chilling speech, especially for ex-Muslims facing risks. The group condemned Coskun’s views but defended his non-public statements.

Stakeholders Champion Free Speech

National Secular Society’s Stephen Evans called the verdict a rejection of backdoor blasphemy laws, urging CPS charging reviews. Free Speech Union’s Lord Young demanded the Director of Public Prosecutions resign, stating the appeal should never have proceeded. Coskun felt reassured to educate the British public on radical Islam dangers. CPS maintained no blasphemy intent, basing the case on disorderly behavior and hostility, and plans to review the decision. Political figures like Robert Jenrick praised it as a free speech win.

Coskun remains under Home Office protection due to post-protest threats, underscoring violence from offended reactions. Secular organizations gained momentum, viewing the precedent as safeguarding offensive protests if reasonable.

Implications for Liberty

The ruling strengthens boundaries for public order laws, protecting expression that alarms or distresses if tied to legitimate protest. Short-term, CPS faces scrutiny and defeat calls. Long-term, it deters overzealous charges, bolstering safeguards against de facto religious offense policing. Socially, it fuels debates on speech versus sensibilities, highlighting extremism risks as in Coskun’s stabbing. For Americans watching across the Atlantic, this echoes fights against government erosion of First Amendment rights, a core conservative value under President Trump’s firm defenses.