Qur’an burning caused 'breakdown in public order', High Court hears

Burning a holy text ‘is in itself disorderly’ the High Court heard yesterday in an appeal over the acquittal of a man convicted of an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Hamit Coskun was last year convicted of using threatening or abusive words of behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He was found to have set fire to a copy of the Qur’an while shouting outside the Turkish consulate in London. Two members of the public reacted violently toward Coskun. He was fined £240 plus a £96 victim surcharge.

Coskun’s conviction was overturned on appeal to Southwark Crown court, which found Coskun’s conduct was not disorderly or within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. The director of public prosecutions appealed to the High Court.

David Perry KC, for the Crown, said: ‘There was a serious breakdown of public order.' He said: ‘It is submitted no reasonable tribunal could have concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove to the required standard that the respondent behaved disorderly for the purposes of Section 5 of the 1986 act. Burning a book in a residential or commercial part of central London, in an area between Knightsbridge and Hyde Park, is in itself disorderly. All the more so when the book is a holy text, whatever the religion. All the more so, when the burning is accompanied by offensive and provocative language as it was in this case.

‘We respectfully agree with the observations of the district judge who said the conduct was disorderly and that was no better illustrated than by the fact it led to serious public disorder, leading to the respondent being assaulted by two different people.’

He told the court that two individuals ‘responded in the way that they did is the very mischief the Public Order Act is designed to address’.

‘That breakdown in public order was as a result of the respondent’s conduct. He effectively provoked it, that gives an insight into whether those individuals were alarmed or distressed by what the respondent had done.’

Tim Owen KC, for Coskun, described the appeal as ‘hopeless’ adding that the court was being asked to ‘rule as a matter of law that certain behaviour is disorderly’.

‘The law, they say, is you cannot burn a book in central London, I mean, that is unarguable. The fact that it is done outside an embassy or consulate makes it worse [the other side says] which completely eviscerates any idea of protest. If you are trying to protest against policies of foreign government in London, you go to the embassy, everyone knows that.

‘On my learned friend’s approach [a situation] suddenly becomes disorderly because you cannot light a book, you cannot set fire to something, in London outside an embassy. It is, in my submission…a really hopeless appeal. It should never have been brought.’

He added: ‘What the director is seeking to achieve in this case is an extraordinarily extreme position. He is inviting you to find as a matter of law that burning the Qur’an on a street in London in any context but particularly outside the Turkish consulate is disorderly. It is impossible for him to do that, in my submission.’

In written submissions, Owen said the appeal ‘is a blatant attempt to relitigate arguments which failed to persuade the Crown court of the respondent’s guilt. There is therefore no basis to overturn the Crown court’s decision on appeal’.

Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Obi reserved judgment.