{"id":919223,"date":"2026-05-18T11:17:31","date_gmt":"2026-05-18T09:17:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/"},"modified":"2026-05-18T11:17:31","modified_gmt":"2026-05-18T09:17:31","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 28 avril 2026, 2026 UPW 15 – PCE V JEAN"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1<\/p>\n

PCE V JEAN<\/p>\n

2026 UPW 15<\/p>\n

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF UPPER PLAINES-WILHEMS CN 19\/2026 In the matter of: POLICE V Wesley JEAN<\/p>\n

JUDGMENT<\/p>\n

THE CHARGE<\/p>\n

1. The Accused is being prosecuted as follows:<\/p>\n

(1) Under Count I, for larceny being armed with an offensive weapon in breach of sections 301(1) and 305(1)(a) of the criminal code (2) Alternatively, under Count II, for possession of property abstracted by means of a crime in breach of sections 40 coupled with sections 301(1) and 305(1)(a) of the criminal code.<\/p>\n

2. Accused pleaded Not Guilty. He elected not to be represented by Counsel at trial.<\/p>\n

3. The case for the Prosecution was conducted by the Police Prosecutor.<\/p>\n

CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION<\/p>\n

4. The case for the prosecution under Count I is to the effect that on or about the 11 th December 2025 at La Mairee, Eau Coulee, the Accused wilfully, criminally and fraudulently whilst being armed with an offensive weapon, to wit: a knife, abstract a sum of Rs 2100 not belonging to him.<\/p>\n

5. Under Count II, the Prosecution alternatively averred that on the aforesaid date and place, the accused was wilfully, unlawfully and without sufficient excuse or justification found to<\/p>\n

have in his possession the sum of Rs 2100 which had been abstracted by means of a crime, to wit: Larceny being armed with an offensive weapon to the prejudice of Witness No.3.<\/p>\n

6. On trial date, the Prosecution called Witness No.1 who produced a defence statement dated 12.12.2025. The Accused stated in court that he does not have any objection to the production but will cross-examine witness No.1 as to the recording procedure. The statement was marked as Doc A<\/p>\n

7. In his out of court statement, after being informed of the facts and circumstances of the case and his constitutional rights, the Accused denied the charge and stated that witness No.3 owed him money and when he asked him, witness No.3 voluntarily brought him to an MCB ATM and withdrew money and gave him Rs 2100.<\/p>\n

8. He was cross-examined by accused and the following was elicited:<\/p>\n

a. Accused put to witness No.1 that he told latter that he cannot read or write and witness No.1 was forcing him to sign, to which witness No.1 replied in court that he read over the statement but accused refused to sign. b. He denied having snatched the phone away from accused when he was calling his counsel. He stated that he gave accused the opportunity to be legally represented but accused did not call his counsel c. He disagreed that when accused did not sign he said \u201cBook ene fois sa pilon la\u201dand he maintained in court that accused became violent when he was informed of the charge and he asked his superiors to cuff him.<\/p>\n

9. The Prosecution then called witness No.2 who stated that on the 25.12.2025 he went on spot at La Mairee Eau Coulee accompanied by witness No.3 where the latter showed him the spots where he said he and accused had a discussion, where the accused threatened him and asked for his money. Witness No.3 showed him the MCB at Curepipe Road where he withdrew Rs 2100 to give to accused.<\/p>\n

10. The witness No.2 was cross-examined by Accused and he stated that there is no camera where witness No.3 stated that accused assaulted him, as witness No.3 showed him the spot near bamboo and not near Tamby Massage. He added that he has no pictures of the spot.<\/p>\n

11. He was re-examined by the Police Prosecutor and he stated that there is only a camera further down the spot which was shown by witness No.3.<\/p>\n

12. The complainant, witness No.3, was called by the Prosecution and he deponed as follows:<\/p>\n

a. On 11.12.2025, he was at his place at La mairee road with his mother. b. He saw accused near his door knocking on his window. When he went outside to talk to him, the latter told him that he bought a laptop from him, which he maintained even though witness No.3 denied same<\/p>\n

c. Witness No.3 was heading to Eau Coulee Police station and accused followed him. Witness No.3 went back home as he forgot his national identity card. d. Witness No.3 called his friend and accused questioned him on the phone call, and at that moment accused took out a knife and pointed it to several parts of his body and pressed it against his cheek. e. Witness No.3 got scared and hung up and asked accused how much money he wanted as he wanted to end this ordeal. He took a vehicle from his friend and he went to the MCB ATM at Curepipe road and the accused accompanied him. f. He withdrew Rs 2100 and gave to accused. He went to the police station after the incident g. He identified accused from the dock<\/p>\n

13. He was cross-examined by Accused and the following was elicited: a. There is no pf58 b. He stated that accused pointed the knife to his belly and chest and pressed it against his cheek. There was no mark on his cheek as the intention of the accused was to scare him and not to leave a trace c. He disagreed that it is a false charge and denied having reported the matter as the Accused is an habitual criminal d. He denied that he and one Zero martial bought a laptop from him. It was put to him that he promised that he would exculpate him from a case but did not do so, and witness No.3 denied same. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE<\/p>\n

14. The Accused elected to keep his right to silence.<\/p>\n

ANALYSIS<\/p>\n

15. The Accused party enjoys a presumption of innocence under Section 10(2)(a) of the Constitution and it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt [vide Boodhoo v The state 2004 SCJ 235].<\/p>\n

Issue: What is the weight to be attached to an unsigned defence statement?<\/p>\n

16. At the outset, I find it apposite to deal with the issue of the out of statement of the Accused dated 12.12.2025 which was produced by Prosecution without objection from the Accused.<\/p>\n

17. The Accused during cross-examination raised the issue that he did not sign the statement as he cannot read or write.<\/p>\n

18. A perusal of the defence statement at the last paragraph witness No.1 read over the statement and at that moment the accused refused to sign by stating \u201cMo pa pu signe et mo pa pou donne aucaine l\u2019empreinte\u201d.<\/p>\n

19. I note that the accused did not deny in court that he was informed of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained before recording his statement, in the first paragraph of his defence statement.<\/p>\n

20. The question in relation to an out of court statement that was admitted as evidence without objection, is the weight to be attached to it when it is unsigned.<\/p>\n

21. Indeed, even if an unsigned statement has been admitted without objection from the accused, such an absence affects the reliability and weight of the document.<\/p>\n

22. The out of court statement of the accused contains no signature at the bottom of all the 4 pages and there is no signature at the end of the paragraphs.<\/p>\n

23. In absence of the signature and in view of the fact that Accused maintained in court that he cannot read or write, I find that this Court is not in a position to know the accuracy of its content, whether accused has agreed to the contents.<\/p>\n

24. In the circumstances, I find that no weight can be attached to the defence statement as far as regards his version given to the police.<\/p>\n

Assessment of the evidence<\/p>\n

25. Now that this issue has been thrashed out, this court will assess the evidence before it.<\/p>\n

26. Under Count I, the Prosecution was tasked with proving the following elements of the offence:<\/p>\n

a. The accused abstracted b. The sum of Rs 2100 c. Not belonging to him d. With fraudulent intent<\/p>\n

27. The Prosecution has further averred that the Accused committed the larceny whilst being armed with an offensive weapon to wit: a knife under section 305(1) of the criminal code, which is an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing.<\/p>\n

28. I have had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and have assessed their demeanour, I have also assessed all evidence on record.<\/p>\n

29. The case of the Prosecution rests on the evidence of the complainant, witness No.3, who deponed in court. I find that witness No.3 cut a credible figure in court and deponed clearly and straightforwardly as to the incident that occurred on the material date. He explained clearly how accused came to his house and told him that he brought a laptop from him and when he denied same, the accused pointed a knife to different parts of his body and pressed the knife against his cheek. He felt scared and went to the atm with the accused and gave him Rs 2100.<\/p>\n

30. It is clear from the above that the remittance of the money by witness No.3 was made due to the fact that accused pointed a knife at him and therefore the remittance cannot be said to have been voluntary [Note 5, Encyclopedie Dalloz Vo Vol].<\/p>\n

31. Witness No.3 maintained his version during cross-examination and I find that he withstood the test of cross-examination and his version was not shaken. He further explained in cross-examination that there was no mark on his cheek when the accused pressed the knife as the accused\u2019s intention was to scare him and not leave any mark.<\/p>\n

32. The Accused put to witness No.3 that he levelled a false charge against him as they are involved in another court case together and accused is a habitual criminal, however witness No.3 denied having done so. I find that witness No.3 is a truthful witness and in view of his testimony and demeanour, I do not believe that bad blood could be a motive to level a false charge against the accused.<\/p>\n

33. I find that witness No.3 is a credible witness and that the Court can safely rely on his uncorroborated evidence to convict the Accused.<\/p>\n

34. Now that this Court has found that the Prosecution has established a strong prima facie case, the burden shifts on accused to satisfy the Court that it should not act on the evidence adduced by the Prosecution- Andoo v The Queen 1989 SCJ 257<\/p>\n

35. The accused has kept his right to silence in court. This Court can therefore draw the inference that the case of the prosecution has remained unrebutted.<\/p>\n

36. I am satisfied that the Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt under Count I that on the material date, the accused wilfully, criminally and fraudulently whilst being armed with an offensive weapon, abstracted the sum of Rs 2100 not belonging to him.<\/p>\n

CONCLUSION<\/p>\n

37. In light of the above, I find that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge of larceny being armed with an offensive weapon under Count I and I find Accused guilty as charged under Count I.<\/p>\n

38. Alternative count II is hence dismissed.<\/p>\n

L.VEERAPATREN (Ms) District Magistrate This 28th April 2026<\/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":"

1 PCE V JEAN 2026 UPW 15 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF UPPER PLAINES-WILHEMS CN 19\/2026 In the matter of: POLICE V Wesley JEAN JUDGMENT THE CHARGE 1. The Accused is being prosecuted as follows: (1) Under Count I, for larceny being armed with an offensive weapon in breach of sections 301(1) and 305(1)(a) of the criminal code (2) Alternatively,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[92765],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[8601,15757,15594],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-919223","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-ms-l-veerapatren-district-magistrate","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-avril","kji_keyword-mauritius","kji_keyword-supreme","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 28 avril 2026, 2026 UPW 15 - PCE V JEAN - 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-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/\" \/>\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, 28 avril 2026, 2026 UPW 15 - PCE V JEAN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1 PCE V JEAN 2026 UPW 15 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF UPPER PLAINES-WILHEMS CN 19\/2026 In the matter of: POLICE V Wesley JEAN JUDGMENT THE CHARGE 1. The Accused is being prosecuted as follows: (1) Under Count I, for larceny being armed with an offensive weapon in breach of sections 301(1) and 305(1)(a) of the criminal code (2) Alternatively,...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/\" \/>\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=\"9 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-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 28 avril 2026, 2026 UPW 15 - PCE V JEAN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-18T09:17:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\\\/#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, 28 avril 2026, 2026 UPW 15 – PCE V JEAN\"}]},{\"@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, 28 avril 2026, 2026 UPW 15 - PCE V JEAN - 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-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 28 avril 2026, 2026 UPW 15 - PCE V JEAN","og_description":"1 PCE V JEAN 2026 UPW 15 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF UPPER PLAINES-WILHEMS CN 19\/2026 In the matter of: POLICE V Wesley JEAN JUDGMENT THE CHARGE 1. The Accused is being prosecuted as follows: (1) Under Count I, for larceny being armed with an offensive weapon in breach of sections 301(1) and 305(1)(a) of the criminal code (2) Alternatively,...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 28 avril 2026, 2026 UPW 15 - PCE V JEAN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-18T09:17:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-28-avril-2026-2026-upw-15-pce-v-jean\/#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, 28 avril 2026, 2026 UPW 15 – PCE V JEAN"}]},{"@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\/919223","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=919223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=919223"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=919223"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=919223"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=919223"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=919223"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=919223"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=919223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}