In a controversial legal twist, Hamit Coskun, convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence for burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London, has successfully appealed his conviction. Coskun, 51, who staged the protest in February 2025, argued that his actions were an exercise of his free speech rights, spotlighting grievances against the Turkish government. He was found guilty in June for shouting inflammatory remarks while setting fire to the Koran, but the appeal court has now overturned this decision.
At the appeal hearing, it was argued that Coskun was targeting the institution of Islam rather than individuals, with his lawyer citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards freedom of expression. The appeal judge ruled that the prosecution failed to prove Coskun’s actions were disorderly or caused public distress.
Before the incident, Coskun had taken to social media, outlining his intentions to protest against Turkey’s leadership, accusing them of harbouring radical Islamic ideologies. The event took a violent turn when Moussa Kadri, a bystander, attacked Coskun in a bid to “protect his religion”. Kadri later admitted to assault and was spared jail.
This case has ignited intense debate about the boundaries of free expression and the use of public order laws. Critics, including the National Secular Society, argue that Coskun’s initial conviction could amount to a modern blasphemy law, eroding the essential right to free speech. They stress that defending free expression sometimes involves standing up for actions one might personally disagree with.
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick stated outside the court: “Free speech is under threat in our country and we have to defend it at all costs, even for acts we wouldn’t personally endorse.” The case has underscored the delicate balance between protecting free speech and addressing community tensions, prompting broader reflections on the intersections of law, religion, and civil liberties.