© Sinai Noor/Shutterstock
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
Despite causing outrage, the High Court upheld acquittal, stressing that speech includes the ‘irritating, contentious… provocative’.
Section 5 must be read narrowly, with behaviour judged objectively against democratic standards. Anger or offence alone is insufficient; only ‘threatening’ or ‘abusive’ conduct crosses the line.
The ruling underlines that even deeply offensive acts may be lawful—freedom that excludes them is ‘not worth having’.
RELATED ARTICLES
