Court says offence not made out despite provocative public protest
The High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) against a Crown Court’s decision to overturn a public order conviction against Hamit Coskun for burning a copy of the Qur’an in central London. In a judgment handed down on 27 February 2026, the court held that the Crown Court’s conclusions were rationally open on the evidence and contained no legal defect, meaning Mr Coskun’s acquittal stands.
Mr Coskun was originally convicted in the Magistrates’ Court of a religiously aggravated offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 after he set fire to a Qur’an outside the Turkish Consulate in Knightsbridge and shouted abusive remarks about Islam. He was fined £240 and ordered to pay a £96 victim surcharge. On appeal in October 2025, Mr Justice Bennathan and lay magistrates quashed that conviction, finding that while the act was offensive, it did not satisfy the statutory test for “disorderly behaviour” or for conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, noting that “freedom of expression must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.”
In the appeal by case stated, the DPP contended that the Crown Court had erred in law by concluding that Mr Coskun’s conduct could not properly be described as disorderly and was unlikely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Counsel for the prosecution argued that burning a religious text in public, particularly when accompanied by offensive language, was in itself disorderly. The respondent’s legal team maintained that the lower court had applied the correct legal principles and properly considered the context, including Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The High Court’s approved judgment emphasised that the appeal was by case stated and not a rehearing of the facts. Warby LJ and Ms Justice Obi explained that whether conduct is “disorderly” and “likely” to cause harassment, alarm or distress are separate factual questions for the trial court, informed by context and informed by human rights considerations. The court noted that the Crown Court identified relevant factors including that Mr Coskun acted alone, his protest was brief and peaceful, and he did not direct his conduct at specific individuals and that there was no “logical flaw” in reaching its conclusions.
Accordingly, the High Court refused the DPP’s appeal, upholding the acquittal. No retrial was ordered, and the decision confirms that, in public order cases engaging expressive conduct, criminal liability must be clearly established on the evidence rather than inferred from offence or upset alone.