{"id":1059810,"date":"2026-06-07T19:32:46","date_gmt":"2026-06-07T17:32:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/"},"modified":"2026-06-07T19:32:46","modified_gmt":"2026-06-07T17:32:46","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 25 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 BRC 9 – Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus<\/p>\n

2020 BRC 9<\/p>\n

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

Provisional Cause Number 1080\/19 BRC Cause Number 2257\/19<\/p>\n

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

Police<\/p>\n

v\/s<\/p>\n

Prithviraj Rambaccus<\/p>\n

RULING<\/p>\n

The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of DRUG DEALING to wit: POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTION in breach of Sections 30 (1) (f) (ii) and 47 (5) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act coupled with GN 242\/13. The Applicant has moved that he be admitted to bail and he was represented by Defence Counsel at the bail hearing. The proceedings were held in Creole language for the benefit of the Applicant.<\/p>\n

The Respondent is resisting the motion and is objecting that the Applicant be granted bail on the ground of Risk of re-offending.<\/p>\n

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

PS Greedharry, 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 mentioned ground. The police officer went on to explain that on 23 rd June 2019 following a search exercise carried out at the dwelling of Applicant, ADSU officers found a container sealed with adhesive tape containing 18 folded aluminium foils containing suspected cannabinoids. The court was informed that a partly used roll of aluminium as well as a pair of scissors were also found on the spot. The main enquiry officer further explained that the value of drug seized was Rs 1800 and that there was direct evidence against the Applicant who had made a confession in relation to possession of drugs but has<\/p>\n

denied the charge of drug dealing in this case. The prosecution witness explained that Applicant had committed 2 cognate offences in the past and Doc X was filed accordingly and the officer went on to explain that should Applicant be granted bail the police firmly believes that he will re-offend. PS Greedharry stated that a reminder had been sent for the FSL report to be made available. In cross examination, PS Greedharry stated that the previous convictions of Applicant date back to 2010 and 2016 and that the ground of objection was based on the Form 15. 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 depose under oath. He went on to state that he was a married man with 3 small children and that he was the sole bread winner of his family. He explained that he would not re- offend again and would comply with all bail conditions imposed by the Court. The case was closed for the Defence after police prosecutor elected not to cross examine the Applicant.<\/p>\n

Defence Counsel offered no submission in law or the facts and left the matter 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<\/p>\n

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

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

Regarding the ground of objection, there is no doubt that drug trafficking being a lucrative business, there is a serious risk of the applicant being tempted to commit further offences. The more so when one considers the value of the drugs recovered in this case and the paraphernalia (partly used aluminium foil and scissors). I further note that Applicant\u2019s status is that on \u2018no calling\u2019 and he stated under oath that he was the sole bread winner of his family. 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 64) . In the present case, the Applicant has partly confessed to the charge against him and as confirmed by the main enquiry officer there is real evidence against him. In the case of DOOKHIT S. v THE<\/p>\n

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 therefore taken into account the past records of the Applicant. I have noted that the Applicant has 2 previous convictions for cultivating cannabis plants and possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution. However, he has never breached a condition of bail in the past. I have borne in mind that although there is a risk of the Applicant reoffending, 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 under oath that he is prepared to abide by any conditions that the Court may impose. 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 to a negligible level.<\/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. 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 complete the enquiry by obtaining the FSL report as expeditiously as possible and 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 against the Applicant not lodged on or before 27 th April 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 50 000 (2) Applicant is to furnish a recognizance in his own name in the sum of Rs 150, 000 (3) Applicant is to report to the nearest police station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 06 00 hours and 18 00 hours (4) Applicant is not to re-offend whilst on bail<\/p>\n

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) Ag. Senior District Magistrate This 25 th February 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 Prithviraj Rambaccus 2020 BRC 9 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 1080\/19 BRC Cause Number 2257\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Prithviraj Rambaccus RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of DRUG DEALING to wit: POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTION in breach of Sections 30 (1) (f) (ii)…<\/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":[8066,99637,96111],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1059810","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-prithviraj","kji_keyword-rambaccus","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 25 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 BRC 9 - Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus - 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-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/\" \/>\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, 25 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 BRC 9 - Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus 2020 BRC 9 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 1080\/19 BRC Cause Number 2257\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Prithviraj Rambaccus RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of DRUG DEALING to wit: POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTION in breach of Sections 30 (1) (f) (ii)...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/\" \/>\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-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 25 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 BRC 9 - Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-07T17:32:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\\\/#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, 25 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 BRC 9 – Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus\"}]},{\"@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, 25 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 BRC 9 - Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus - 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-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 25 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 BRC 9 - Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus","og_description":"Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus 2020 BRC 9 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 1080\/19 BRC Cause Number 2257\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Prithviraj Rambaccus RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of DRUG DEALING to wit: POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTION in breach of Sections 30 (1) (f) (ii)...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/","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-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 25 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 BRC 9 - Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-07T17:32:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-25-fevrier-2020-2020-brc-9-police-v-prithviraj-rambaccus\/#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, 25 f\u00e9vrier 2020, 2020 BRC 9 – Police v Prithviraj Rambaccus"}]},{"@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\/1059810","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=1059810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1059810"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1059810"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1059810"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1059810"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1059810"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1059810"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1059810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}