"We are not persuaded that the court left any material factor out of account or relied on any immaterial factor. This statement from Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Obi directly rejected the CPS's arguments that the original judge had made errors in assessing whether Coskun's behaviour constituted disorderly conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress."
"The High Court has rightly rejected this wrongheaded attempt to introduce a blasphemy law by the back door. However offensive some may have found the Quran-burning protest, it was lawful. Criminal law protects people from harm, not from being offended. Stephen Evans emphasized that the decision upheld free speech principles and clarified the distinction between offensive speech and criminal conduct."
"Lawyers for the CPS told a hearing earlier in February that Mr Justice Bennathan had been wrong to find that Coskun's behaviour was not disorderly and, if it was, was unlikely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. This articulated the CPS's core argument that the original judgment incorrectly assessed both the nature of the conduct and its potential impact on others."
Hamit Coskun was initially convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence after burning a Quran and shouting expletives about Islam outside the Turkish embassy in London. The Crown Prosecution Service appealed the acquittal at the High Court, arguing the original judge erred in finding the behaviour was not disorderly and unlikely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress. Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Obi dismissed the appeal, stating no material factors were overlooked or misapplied. The Free Speech Union called the CPS defeat humiliating and demanded the Director of Public Prosecutions resign. Coskun, an atheist provided Home Office accommodation due to threats, attended the hearing and resisted the legal challenge.
Read at www.bbc.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]