Extremists could be handed the “power to determine the limits of lawful expression” if a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate has a conviction reinstated, the National Secular Society has warned.

The High Court will on Tuesday hear an appeal from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to overturn a decision to quash the conviction of Hamit Coskun, who was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence in June.

In February Coskun, a Turkish asylum seeker of Armenian and Kurdish heritage, burned a Quran outside the Turkish Consulate in London while shouting “Islam is religion of terrorism”. He said his demonstration was a protest against policies which are turning Turkey into a “base for radical Islamists”.

He was then attacked by two men, one armed with a knife.

The NSS, which is co-funding Coskun’s defence, said the law “should never be used to enforce religious orthodoxy”.

Burning a book can amount to “legitimate political protest”

Coskun was originally found guilty of an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act which criminalises using words or behaving in a disorderly manner, or displaying material that is likely to harass, intimidate or distress others.

He was also found guilty under section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which makes the public order offence “religiously aggravated”.

But overturning the conviction, the Crown Court said “the right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb”.

In a written judgment, Mr Justice Bennathan added: “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.”

The CPS then appealed against the Crown Court’s decision. Despite denying that prosecuting Coskun was an attempt to introduce a blasphemy offence, the CPS said in its appeal application that burning a Quran in public is an “act of desecration”.

In its skeleton argument ahead of the hearing, the CPS said the “disorderly behaviour” of burning the Quran was “likely to cause at the very least distress to any right-minded person within the vicinity of the premises”.

It said the High Court’s reasoning in overturning the conviction “appears to overlook that the behaviour led to a violent incident on a Central London thoroughfare”.

Coskun required hospital treatment after being assaulted by Moussa Kadri with a knife and kicked while lying on the floor by the second assailant. Kadri has avoided jail.

Since the attack, Coskun has been moved to a safe house following death threats.

Coskun’s defence argues in their skeleton argument that while burning a book in public “is capable of amounting to disorderly conduct”, it is “equally capable of amounting to a legitimate political protest”.

They added: “All depends on context”.

The argument said that “the provocative nature of a protest – and perhaps, for some, its “offensive”, “distasteful” and/or “intemperate” nature – is not sufficient to make out the offence”.

Blasphemy was abolished as a common law offence in England and Wales in 2008. It is still an offence in Northern Ireland.

In 2024, the Government said it would not reintroduce blasphemy laws, after Tahir Ali MP asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer to “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and prophets of the Abrahamic religions”.

NSS: “extremists will be handed a veto over free speech” if appeal succeeds

NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said: “The CPS appears determined to establish a blasphemy law by the back door.

“Its approach casts those subjected to violence for offending religious sensibilities as the wrongdoers – a stark inversion of justice.

“In its submissions, the CPS has argued that anyone not distressed by the burning of a Quran is not ‘right-minded’. It is not the role of prosecutors to determine what citizens should think or feel about contentious expression. The law should never be used to enforce religious orthodoxy.

“If this appeal succeeds, extremists will be handed a veto over free speech and the power to determine the limits of lawful expression. The High Court must reject this attempt to police offence on behalf of religion.”