Man found guilty after burning Koran wins appeal against conviction

5 comments

1. [removed]

2. [removed]

3. The correct decision. It’s also pretty maddening that the man who attacked the book burner with a knife causing harm has not been jailed.

4. [removed]

5. You can read the judgment [here](https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rex-v-hamit-coskun-2/) if you are interested.

   A key thing to note – these cases are fact-specific. Just because the Crown Court found that this guy did not commit a crime by burning a Koran doesn’t mean burning a Koran is always legal (or always illegal). It was never about *just* burning the book, it was about whether his conduct was “disorderly” and whether “it was within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”

   Paragraphs 35-41 set out the reasons they came up with for why they think *in this case* his conduct did not amount to disorderly conduct within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, and is worth a read for anyone who cares.

   For the more legally/technically inclined, there is also this big:

   > Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 imported an adverse inference for a failure to testify “at the **trial** of any person” (emphasis added) [in the original]. This is not a trial, it is an appeal. It is an appeal by way of rehearing that replicates a trial, but an appeal nonetheless. Do the terms of section 35 permit an adverse inference from the Defendant choosing not to give evidence in the proceedings before us?

   Coskun decided not to give evidence. There was a fun question as to whether that could be used against him given the wording of the law, as this wasn’t a trail, even though it was a rehearing.

   Also:

   > The shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick attended Southwark Crown Court in support of Coskun.

   Not sure how I feel about a shadow justice secretary turning up to a court to support a party in a trial… Certainly this would be inappropriate for the Justice Secretary to do so.

Comments are closed.