The entire basis for the judgement was firstly the judge chastising the defendant for not doing the impossible and distinguishing between Islam and Muslims, and secondly the fact Muslims threatened violence before the burning and acted violently after. This is exactly what I described in my so-called “word salad”. Perhaps read that and the judgement. In other words, if a religious minority is likely to become violent when you desecrate or insult their religion, then you are forbidden by these terrible laws from engaging in this conduct in public. Whereas, adherents who would not react in this manner cause no such prohibition. It's a law that privileges Islam, and, in this context, it is a blasphemy law. You can engage in proceduralism as much as you like, it doesn't alter this fact. The judge completely failed to pay due regard to section 29[J] of The Public Order Act 1986:
Nothing in this Part 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, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
Parliament was at pains to make clear that such conduct should not constitute a crime. Note “practices of their adherents” and “practices of its adherents”. There's no distinction specified between religion and adherent. The section of this act specifies that you're permitted to ridicule both. Yet the judge ignored this. Everything else is said is also accurate. The CPS, especially, could have chosen not to prosecute this case on the basis of public interest, as it did in a similar case. There's no lie here whatsoever. The only argument you could possibly make is in regard to the ECHR, which is inconsistent in this area.