Public disorder conviction for man who burned a Quran – Humanists UK comment

A man who burnt a Quran outside the Turkish Embassy in London has been found guilty of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm, or distress by Westminster Magistrates’ Court. He has been ordered to pay a fine of £240 and surcharge of £96.

With welcome clarity, the judge said that the current prosecution was not ‘an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law’ and said that burning a religious book, although offensive to some, is not necessarily disorderly. The judge did, however, find that in this case, the location of the burning and the man’s associated actions made it so. In addition, comments the man made in his police interview were prejudicial towards Muslims. As a result, the judge found that the defendant had a ‘deep-seated’ hatred of not just Islam but also its followers, and that it was not possible to separate the two.

A Humanists UK spokesperson said:

‘We unequivocally condemn acts of religious hatred and harassment. Many of the defendant’s views, revealed in the course of the trial, are bigoted, and all decent people would be repelled by them. Nevertheless, given that the defendant did not express anything publicly that was prejudicial against Muslims, the judgment does raise concerns. While the facts of the case are complex, we believe the judgment, and specifically the religiously aggravated charge, means that the bar to successful prosecutions in cases like this is drawn too low. When blasphemy laws were repealed in 2008, it was a victory for freedom of expression. We must make sure that public order legislation is not used to disproportionately target speech – even offensive speech – on religious matters, thereby chilling legitimate criticism and expression.’

What happened in this case

For the defendant to be convicted, his conduct had to both be shown to be disorderly and he had to be found to be motivated by prejudice against Muslims. When handing down the judgment, the judge said that criticising Islam or the Quran is not necessarily disorderly. Burning a religious book, although offensive to some, is also not necessarily disorderly. But the burning of the Quran in this case was carried out in a visible way, given the choice of location, timing, holding it above his head, and shouting abusive language, including to others around him. The man shouted ‘Fuck Islam. Islam is religion of terror. Quran is burning.’ These facts all taken together made the man’s conduct disorderly.

For such conduct to be religiously aggravated, it had to also be demonstrably motivated by prejudice against Muslims. Here, the key evidence was what the man said in his police interview after the events. He said that 99% of those raping young girls that he would read about in the news are Muslim. He also said that Muslims invade, keep getting bigger in number, and that they use others as slaves. These comments are abhorrent. But the case illustrates that ex-Muslims, who may hold prejudicial views about their former community because of their experiences, may find themselves more liable to conviction in a case like this, even if those views are not publicly expressed.

The man was charged under section 5 of the Public Disorder Act for burning a copy of the Quran while shouting disparaging remarks about Islam within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress. He was also charged with the religiously aggravated version of the same offence under section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act. His trial took place last week.

In February, the defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge that was originally reported as: ‘intent to cause against religious institution [sic] of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress’. Humanists UK wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to point out that the law doesn’t protect any institution – religious or secular – from harassment. The CPS then substituted the charge for one of likely causing harassment, alarm, or distress to individuals.

Religious hatred or legitimate criticism?

The separate part of the Public Order Act that deals with religious hatred clearly states that:

‘Nothing in this Part [the religious hatred part of the Act] shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents…’

This part of the Act was carefully designed to avoid the law being used for claims of blasphemy. It draws a clear line between actions and expressions of religious hatred against individuals based on their religion – which are criminal; and actions and expressions that are critical, even abusive, of religious doctrines but do not target individuals – which are not to be prohibited or restricted.

However, prosecutors instead charged him under a section of the Act that is not in the religious hatred part. This other section doesn’t fall under the above-quoted free speech protection. This risks having the effect of circumventing free speech protections for criticism of religion.

The risk of blasphemy laws by the back door

This is the first case of its kind to be tried by a judge since blasphemy laws were repealed in England and Wales in 2008.

Two similar cases were brought earlier in 2025. A man was charged in Manchester in February following a separate Quran-burning incident. The defendant originally pleaded guilty, but has since withdrawn that plea. His trial will he heard later this year which means his rights to freedom of religion or belief and of expression have not yet been tested in court. In another parallel, a Christian street preacher in Walsall faced similar charges after publicly denouncing the Quran, but his case was dismissed in March after a judge concluded the CPS had not brought sufficient evidence of any crime.

In both the London and Walsall cases, the men were themselves the victims of blasphemy-motivated violence before being arrested; the London protester was assaulted with a knife, while the Walsall preacher had his throat slit. Humanists UK has previously cautioned that blasphemy-motivated extremism and violence is a growing problem, and that such violence is inevitably encouraged when prohibitions on ‘blasphemy’ are legitimised by authorities.

Campaigning against the return of blasphemy laws

At a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group in May, organised by Humanists UK, MPs and peers expressed concern about the implications of this case and reaffirmed their commitment to protecting freedom of expression in law. Lord Walney, who had been commissioned by the previous government to make recommendations on how best to defend democracy from extremism, urged the new government to address the ambiguities highlighted by this trial.

Humanists UK successfully campaigned for the abolition of blasphemy laws in England and Wales in 2008, welcomed their repeal in Scotland last year, and continues to campaign for the end of blasphemy laws in Northern Ireland and around the world. In a statement to the UN last year, Humanists UK reminded states that blasphemy laws (such as those against damaging religious books) are not compatible with freedom of speech nor the UN Rabat Plan on hate crime. Countries with blasphemy laws typically see much more religious violence of this kind than countries without. Instead, the state has a duty to treat violence and violent threats with the utmost seriousness. Following Denmark’s decision to introduce a Quran-burning blasphemy law and similar callsmade in the UK in 2024, Humanists UK received reassurances from Downing Street that no such laws would be introduced here.