Akua Reindorf KC has said the charge against Hamit Coskun, who in February burnt a Quran outside the Turkish Consulate in London, is “plainly defective”.

Mr Coskun said his display was a protest against the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and an act of solidarity with Salwan Momika – an Iraqi refugee who was assassinated in Sweden in January after burning Qurans in repeated public protests.

He was subsequently charged with “intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress”. He has pleaded not guilty. Ms Reindorf said the charge was “plainly defective on its face” as the “religious institution of Islam” is not a “person” for the purposes of the Public Order Act.

She added that treating the “religious institution of Islam” as a person was “tantamount to preferring a charge of blasphemy”, and that a conviction on the basis of available facts “would amount to the criminalisation of the act of desecrating a religious text in a public place”.

Blasphemy was abolished as a common law offence in England and Wales in 2008.

The National Secular Society this week wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service urging it to drop the prosecution of Mr Coskun.

In its letter, the NSS said his burning of the Quran was clearly an act of political protest – a type of expression protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech.

Last year, the UK government explicitly ruled out reintroducing blasphemy laws, after Tahir Ali MP asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer to “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and prophets of the Abrahamic religions”.

In February, the government also committed to protecting the right to free expression as part of efforts to challenge anti-Muslim bigotry, stating that “no blasphemy laws will be introduced by this government”.

Mr Coskun is due to appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court for trial on 28 May.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, said: “This prosecution is legally flawed and amounts to a dangerous reintroduction of blasphemy laws through the backdoor.

“The burning of a Quran, however offensive to some, was in this instance a legitimate form of political protest, protected under human rights law. Proceeding with charge would not only undermine free speech but also set a perilous precedent, effectively reintroducing blasphemy laws that were abolished in 2008.

“As the legal opinion we’ve obtained makes clear, these charges should be dropped to safeguard both the integrity of our legal system and to protect the fundamental right freedom of expression.”