{"id":1056628,"date":"2026-06-06T21:35:44","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T19:35:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/"},"modified":"2026-06-06T21:35:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T19:35:44","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 26 mai 2020, 2020 BRC 143 – Police v Devalingum Coodien"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Police v Devalingum Coodien<\/p>\n

2020 BRC 143<\/p>\n

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

Provisional Cause Number 1134\/19 (Upper Plaines Wilhems) BRC Cause Number 2851\/19<\/p>\n

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

Police<\/p>\n

v\/s<\/p>\n

Devalingum Coodien<\/p>\n

RULING<\/p>\n

The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of LARCENY BEING MORE THAN TWO IN NUMBERS in breach of Section 305 1 (b) of the Criminal Code Act. The Applicant has moved that he be admitted to bail and the proceedings were held in Creole language for the benefit of the Applicant who stood inops consilii 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 6377 Gooroovadoo, the main enquiry officer was called by the Prosecution and he explained that he had been deputed by the Commissioner of the police to resist<\/p>\n

the present bail application on the above mentioned grounds of objection. He explained that on 11 th May 2019 at 13 30 hours at Vacoas, the Declarant was victim of a larceny with violence by three men and was injured in the process with a cutter and the officer went on to state that the motor vehicle of Declarant, a Nissan Juke bearing registration number 6210 ZY 11 as well as a mobile were stolen worth Rs 350 000. The Court was informed that only the car was recovered and that the Applicant had denied the charge but the co-Accused parties have implicated him.<\/p>\n

Regarding the first ground of objection, the main enquiry officer explained that the Applicant was on bail for a cognate offence when he was arrested for the present case and Doc A was filed accordingly. In relation to the second ground of objection, the main enquiry officer explained that in the past the Applicant has committed 6 cognate offences for breach of conditions of release and Doc X was filed accordingly. The officer explained further that the police enquiry was completed and that the case file has been sent to the DPP\u2019s office since 15 th March 2020 for advice.<\/p>\n

In cross examination the main enquiry officer stated that the Applicant refused to corporate with the police and the case was then closed for the Prosecution.<\/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 respect all bail conditions. No defence witness was called and the case was then closed for the Defence.<\/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<\/p>\n

(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; (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

The rationale as to bail was clearly set out in the case of Maloupe v The District Magistrate of Grand Port [2000] SCJ 233, where it was held as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe rationale of the law of bail at pre-trial stage is, accordingly, that a person should normally be released on bail if the imposition of the conditions reduces the risks referred to above- i.e risk of absconding, risk to administration of justice, risk to society- to such an extent that they become negligible having regard to the weight which the presumption of innocence should carry in the balance when the imposition of the above conditions is considered to be unlikely to make any of the above risks negligible, then bail is to be refused.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is also trite law that in deciding whether to grant bail to the applicant, a balance must be struck between \u201con the one hand the need to safeguard the necessary respect for the liberty of the citizen viewed in the context of the presumption of innocence and, on the other hand the need to ensure that society and the administration of justice are reasonable protected against serious risks which might materialise in the event that the detainee is really the criminal which he is suspected to be\u201d [Labonne v. DPP & Anor 2005 SCJ 38]<\/p>\n

RISKS OF RE-OFFENDING AND ABSCONDING<\/p>\n

With regards to the first ground of objection raised by the police, I have addressed my mind to the charge against the Applicant and the nature of the evidence against him. (RE: MALOUPE VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF GRAND PORT [2000 MR 64]). According to the Information, the Applicant is charged with the offence of larceny made by more than two individuals with aggravating circumstances. I have considered the fact that Applicant has denied the charge and the principle of the presumption of innocence. I find that Applicant was on bail for a cognate offence and he was on bail for other 6 non-cognate offences when he was arrested for the present case. 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 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF GRAND PORT (2000) MR 6 4). In the present case, the Applicant has denied the charge against him and as confirmed by the main enquiry officer he refused to corporate with the police. I have considered further that the co-Accused have implicated the Applicant so that there is real 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

In relation to the second ground of objection, the risk of absconding I have therefore taken into account the past records of the Applicant and I have noted that he has breached conditions of bail in the past on numerous occasions. I have borne in mind that although there is a risk of the Applicant re-offending and absconding, 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 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

I have also taken into account the Applicant\u2019s statement from the dock that he will abide with bail conditions imposed should he be granted bail. I note that the status of Applicant is that of \u201cself-employed\u201d and that he has a propensity to commit larceny with aggravated circumstances cases and other dishonesty offences and is of violent disposition. I further considered the fact that the main enquiry officer has stated has<\/p>\n

the police enquiry was completed and that the main case will be lodged shortly as the case file is already at the DPP\u2019s Office for advice.<\/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, which could be imposed to effectively reduce the risk of the Applicant re-offending and absconding to a negligible level.<\/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

After having carried 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. 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 within a period of 2 months, that is on or before 27 th July 2020, the Applicant is to be granted bail on the following conditions:<\/p>\n

(1) Applicant is to furnish a surety in cash in the sum of Rs 35,000 (2) Applicant is to enter into a recognizance in his own name for the sum of Rs 100,000 (3) Applicant is to report to the nearest police station daily between 06 00 hours and 18 00 hours (4) Applicant is not to re-offend whilst on bail (5) A curfew order is imposed on Applicant. He is to reside at his place of residence, address given to the enquiry officers between 19 00 hours and 05 00 hours daily. In case of emergency, he is to inform the police before proceeding outdoors.<\/p>\n

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) Ag. Senior District Magistrate This 26 th May 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 Devalingum Coodien 2020 BRC 143 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 1134\/19 (Upper Plaines Wilhems) BRC Cause Number 2851\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Devalingum Coodien RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of LARCENY BEING MORE THAN TWO IN NUMBERS in breach of Section 305 1 (b) of the Criminal Code…<\/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":[108613,127416,8066],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1056628","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-coodien","kji_keyword-devalingum","kji_keyword-police","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 26 mai 2020, 2020 BRC 143 - Police v Devalingum Coodien - 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-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/\" \/>\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, 26 mai 2020, 2020 BRC 143 - Police v Devalingum Coodien\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Police v Devalingum Coodien 2020 BRC 143 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 1134\/19 (Upper Plaines Wilhems) BRC Cause Number 2851\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Devalingum Coodien RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of LARCENY BEING MORE THAN TWO IN NUMBERS in breach of Section 305 1 (b) of the Criminal Code...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/\" \/>\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=\"11 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-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 26 mai 2020, 2020 BRC 143 - Police v Devalingum Coodien - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-06T19:35:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\\\/#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, 26 mai 2020, 2020 BRC 143 – Police v Devalingum Coodien\"}]},{\"@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, 26 mai 2020, 2020 BRC 143 - Police v Devalingum Coodien - 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-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 26 mai 2020, 2020 BRC 143 - Police v Devalingum Coodien","og_description":"Police v Devalingum Coodien 2020 BRC 143 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 1134\/19 (Upper Plaines Wilhems) BRC Cause Number 2851\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Devalingum Coodien RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of LARCENY BEING MORE THAN TWO IN NUMBERS in breach of Section 305 1 (b) of the Criminal Code...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 26 mai 2020, 2020 BRC 143 - Police v Devalingum Coodien - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-06T19:35:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-26-mai-2020-2020-brc-143-police-v-devalingum-coodien\/#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, 26 mai 2020, 2020 BRC 143 – Police v Devalingum Coodien"}]},{"@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\/1056628","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=1056628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1056628"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1056628"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1056628"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1056628"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1056628"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1056628"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1056628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}