{"id":1056471,"date":"2026-06-06T20:25:47","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T18:25:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/"},"modified":"2026-06-06T20:25:47","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T18:25:47","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 150 – Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo<\/p>\n

2020 BRC 150<\/p>\n

IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT<\/p>\n

Provisional Cause Number 388\/2020 (Pamplemousses)<\/p>\n

In the matter of:<\/p>\n

Police<\/p>\n

v\/s<\/p>\n

Sharvesh Sokaloo<\/p>\n

RULING<\/p>\n

The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of LARCENY BY NIGHT BREAKING in breach of Section 301 (1) and 306 of the Criminal Code Act. The Applicant has moved that he be admitted to bail and the proceedings were held in Creole for his benefit and he was represented by Defence Counsel at the bail hearing.<\/p>\n

The Respondent is resisting the motion and is objecting that the Applicant be granted bail on the following grounds:<\/p>\n

(1) Risk of re-offending (2) Risk of absconding<\/p>\n

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION<\/p>\n

PS Padaruth, the main enquiry officer was called by the Prosecution and he explained that he had been deputed by the Commissioner of Police to resist the present bail application on the above grounds. He explained that on the 12 th<\/p>\n

September 2019 at around 18 15 hours the Applicant broke into a hardware store and stole a drilling machine, a polishing machine and grinder worth Rs 15 000. The<\/p>\n

main enquiry officer stated that the exhibit had been recovered and that the Applicant had denied the charge. The officer went on to state that the Applicant was borne on record for 9 cognate offences and the record of previous convictions of Applicant was filed accordingly. The officer further explained that there was a risk of Applicant re-offending and absconding and that the police enquiry was still ongoing. The police officer explained that blood spots were located and samples taken sent for analysis and that the report obtained matches the blood sample of Applicant. The court was informed that there was scientific evidence against the Applicant and that two more months were needed to complete the police enquiry.<\/p>\n

In cross examination the main enquiry officer confirmed that the Applicant had a fixed place of abode and that there was a prohibition order against the Applicant. The case was then closed against the Applicant.<\/p>\n

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE<\/p>\n

The Applicant was explained his Constitutional Rights and he elected to make a statement from the Dock. He went on to explain that he will comply with all conditions imposed by the Court should he be granted bail.<\/p>\n

Defence Counsel offered no submissions and simply left matters in the hands of the Court.<\/p>\n

The RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE LAW<\/p>\n

In the case of Hurnam v The State [2005 UKPC 49], the Privy Council held that only section 4(1) (a) of the 1999 Act specifies the core reasons for refusing bail. Individually, they are to be considered to provide a conclusive reason for refusing bail. Section 4(1)(a) of the Bail Act 1999 reads as follows:<\/p>\n

4. Refusal to release on bail<\/p>\n

(1) A Judge or a Magistrate may refuse to release a defendant or a detainee on bail where (a) (a) he is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that the defendant or detainee if released is likely to \u2013 (i) (i) fail to surrender to custody or to appear before a court as and when required (ii) (ii) commit an offence, other than an offence punishable only by a fine not exceeding 1000 rupees (iii) (iii) interfere with witnesses, tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, in relation to him or to any other person.<\/p>\n

Secondly, as regards to paragraphs 4 (1)(b) to (f) of the Bail Act which are not compelling grounds or core reasons per se to deprive an individual of his liberty but, if relevant, the court need to take into account in order to determine the likelihood of the risks listed in section 4(l)(a) to materialise. The section of the Bail Act 1999 provides as follows:<\/p>\n

(1) A Judge or a Magistrate may refuse to release a defendant or a detainee on bail where-<\/p>\n

(b) he is satisfied that the defendant or detainee should be kept in custody – (i) for his own protection; or (ii) in the case of a minor, for his own welfare; (c) the defendant or detainee, having been released on bail, has \u2013 (i) committed an act referred to in paragraph (a); or (ii) breached any other condition imposed on him for his release: (d) the defendant or detainee is charged or is likely to be charged with a serious offence; (e) there is reasonable ground for believing that the defendant or detainee has – (i) given false or misleading information regarding his names or address; or 5 (ii) no fixed place of abode; (f) a detainee has failed to comply with section 12(2).<\/p>\n

Thirdly, a set of consideration is provided under section 4(2) of the Bail Act 1999 to assess the likelihood of the risks enumerated under section 4(l) (a) to materialise. This section provides that:<\/p>\n

In making a determination under subsection (1), the Judge or Magistrate shall have regard to such considerations as appear to the Judge or Magistrate to be relevant, including \u2013<\/p>\n

(a) the nature of the offence and the penalty applicable thereto; (b) the character and antecedents of the defendant or detainee; (c) the nature of the evidence available with regard to the offence.<\/p>\n

Hence, the wording of section 4(1) of the Bail Act 1999 makes it clear that release on bail at pretrial stage is the release upon conditions designed to ensure that the suspect:<\/p>\n

(1) appears for his trial, if he is eventually prosecuted;<\/p>\n

(2) in case he happens to be the author of the offence of which is he suspected, does no further harm to society whilst being at large; and (3) does not interfere with the course of justice, should he be so minded.<\/p>\n

In the case of Hurnam v The State [2005 UKPC 49], their Lordships made it clear that refusal of bail will be justified only where there are reasonable grounds to infer that the grant of bail will lead to the materialisation of one of the relevant risks \u201cwhich cannot be effectively eliminated by the imposition of appropriate conditions\u201d.<\/p>\n

RISK OF RE-OFFENDING<\/p>\n

Regarding the first ground of objection, there is no doubt that considering the previous record of conviction of Applicant, there is a serious risk of the Applicant being tempted to commit further offences. I am therefore satisfied that the danger of re-offending is \u201cplausible\u201d [as stated in Deelchand v. DPP & Anor (supra) citing Clooth v. Belgium [1991] ECHR 71 (12 December 1991) at para 40].<\/p>\n

I have therefore addressed and applied the two-limbed test as laid down in the case of DEELCHAND V THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND OTHERS (Supra), namely that:<\/p>\n

(i) if the evidence against him appears strong, he is more likely to think he has nothing to lose by re-offending;<\/p>\n

(ii) if the evidence appears weak to him, he will be less likely to take the risk of detection upon re-offending.<\/p>\n

I have assessed an overview of the evidence. (RE: MALOUPE VS DISTRICTMAGISTRATE OF GRAND PORT [2000 MR 64]. In the present case, the Applicant has denied the charge against him and as confirmed by the main enquiry officer there is real police evidence against him. In the case of DOOKHIT S. v THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF PAMPLEMOUSSES, DISTRICT COURT, PAMPLEMOUSSES (2011) SCJ 101 , his Lordship laid down as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough the risk of re-offending would necessarily be based on conjecture, the nature of the offence charged and the record of an applicant are useful pointers for a court to decide on this issue\u201d.<\/p>\n

I have however borne in mind that even if there is a risk of the Applicant re-offending, the Court should consider whether conditions can be imposed on the Applicant to render these risks negligible. (RE: MALOUPE VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF GRAND PORT). An imposition of a heavy security will ensure the Applicant\u2019s appearance before Court and will be an incentive for him not to indulge in any other<\/p>\n

offence. In the case of DEELCHAND V THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND OTHERS (SUPRA) , the Learned Judge had this to say:<\/p>\n

\u201cSecurity appears applicable to all the risks as it may be an incentive to the applicant to appear for trial, to behave whilst on bail and to refrain from interfering with witnesses, or tampering with evidence\u201d.<\/p>\n

The conditions which I have considered are the duty to report to a police station, undertaking not to travel abroad, imposition of a surety and recognizance, residing at a fixed place of abode, a curfew order, informing police officers of his whereabouts, use of mobile phone for communication of movements and regular meetings with police officers as well as other conditions which could have been appropriate in such a case. I am however of the opinion that there are no conditions, even severe ones, which could be imposed to effectively reduce the risk of the applicant re-offending to a negligible level.<\/p>\n

I have also taken into account the Applicant\u2019s statement from the dock. I do also note that the main enquiry officer has stated that the police enquiry was still ongoing and that another two months would be needed to complete enquiry.<\/p>\n

RISK OF ABSCONDING<\/p>\n

In relation to the second ground of objection I find that the Applicant is not borne on record as per Doc X on record for any breach of conditions of release and absconding. I find that the main enquiry officer could not substantiate this ground of objection and therefore this ground of objection cannot stand.<\/p>\n

After carrying out the required balancing exercise, I hold that the need for Applicant to be in continued detention in the circumstances outweighs his right to remain at large.<\/p>\n

I find it apt to refer to the case of Rangasamy M.N v D.P.P & Anor [2005 SCJ 249] where the Court had this to say:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe consider that judicial officers in Mauritius who have first- hand knowledge of the prevailing local conditions regarding law and order and organized crime should have a margin of appreciation in exercising their discretion and deciding on the need for a detainee to be admitted to bail, taking into account all the public interest grounds for refusing bail listed in section 4 of the Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

The motion for bail is therefore set aside. However, the Applicant has the right to be tried within a reasonable time as stipulated under Section 5(3) of the Constitution. The Applicant \u201cmust, whatever the Bail Act says or does not say, be released unless he is brought to trial within a reasonable time\u201d vide Hossen v District Magistrate of Port Louis [1993 MR 9]. In light of the above, I strongly urge the Prosecuting Authority to lodge the formal charge against the Applicant so that he is tried within a reasonable time as guaranteed by the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Should the main case not be lodged against the Applicant on or before 30 th July 2020, he is to be granted bail on the following conditions:<\/p>\n

(1) Applicant is to furnish a surety in the sum of Rs 15 000; (2) Applicant is to enter a recognizance of Rs 60 000 (own name); (3) Applicant is to report to the nearest police station daily between 06 00 hours and 18 00 hours. (4) A curfew order is imposed on Applicant. He is to remain indoors daily between 19 00 hours and 05 00 hours at his residential address and in case there is an emergency warranting him to go out, he must contact the police to inform them of his predicament before proceeding outside during the hours of curfew; (5) Applicant is to reside at a fixed place of abode, address which he will communicate to the enquiry officers;<\/p>\n

The matter is fixed Pro Forma on 30 th July 2020 if main case not lodged.<\/p>\n

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) Ag. Senior District Magistrate This 1 st June 2020<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a> · PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo 2020 BRC 150 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 388\/2020 (Pamplemousses) In the matter of: Police v\/s Sharvesh Sokaloo RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of LARCENY BY NIGHT BREAKING in breach of Section 301 (1) and 306 of the Criminal Code Act. The Applicant has moved that he be…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[127341],"kji_year":[41198],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[8066,106341,128303],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1056471","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-mrs-bhamini-prayag-rajcoomar-acting-senior-district-magistrate","kji_year-41198","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-police","kji_keyword-sharvesh","kji_keyword-sokaloo","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 1 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 150 - Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 150 - Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo 2020 BRC 150 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 388\/2020 (Pamplemousses) In the matter of: Police v\/s Sharvesh Sokaloo RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of LARCENY BY NIGHT BREAKING in breach of Section 301 (1) and 306 of the Criminal Code Act. The Applicant has moved that he be...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 150 - Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-06T18:25:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 150 – Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 150 - Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 150 - Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo","og_description":"Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo 2020 BRC 150 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 388\/2020 (Pamplemousses) In the matter of: Police v\/s Sharvesh Sokaloo RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of LARCENY BY NIGHT BREAKING in breach of Section 301 (1) and 306 of the Criminal Code Act. The Applicant has moved that he be...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 150 - Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-06T18:25:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-1-juin-2020-2020-brc-150-police-v-sharvesh-sokaloo\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 1 juin 2020, 2020 BRC 150 – Police v Sharvesh Sokaloo"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/1056471","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1056471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1056471"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1056471"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1056471"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1056471"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1056471"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1056471"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1056471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}