{"id":569013,"date":"2026-04-15T14:40:06","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:40:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T14:40:06","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:40:06","slug":"r-v-brett-wight","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Brett Wight"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

MR JUSTICE BENNATHAN: 1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person\u2019s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. In this judgment we will refer to the complainant as "C". 2. The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction on three grounds, two of which were before the Single Judge and on which leave was refused, and one of which is new and application is made to amend to include it. He also renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence, that having been refused by another Single Judge. 3. On 8 December 2023 in the Crown Court at Newcastle Upon Tyne before Her Honour Judge Clemitson the applicant was convicted of Rape and of Engaging in Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship. He was acquitted of two counts of Assault by Penetration, three counts of Rape, and a count of Sexual Assault. 4. On 20 September 2024 the applicant was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence comprised of a custodial term of 12 years and an extended licence period of 8 years on count 4, Rape, and a determinate sentence of 4 years on count 8, Controlling Behaviour to be served concurrently. He was also sentenced to a 3 year consecutive term for other matters. 5. The applicant and C had been in a relationship for over 20 years. The Prosecution case was that throughout the relationship the applicant was controlling. For example he prevented C from seeing her family, made threats to assault men she was seen to speak to, and threatened to kill their dog. During the relationship he anally raped her. 6. To prove that the applicant had raped C, the Prosecution relied on the evidence of C. A number of members of her family gave evidence about the applicant\u2019s bullying behaviour towards C. 7. Jennifer Beadle, described as a clinical lead, gave evidence for the Prosecution about diagnosing C with autism. She had assessed C alone and then with the applicant present. There had been no mention of any sexual abuse by C. In re-examination by prosecution counsel, however, Ms Beadle mistakenly stated that there was information to suggest that there had been abuse in the relationship. 8. The applicant was arrested and interviewed. He provided a full account in interview, denied the offences alleged, and maintained that all sexual activity between himself and C had been consensual. 9. The applicant gave evidence in his defence. He maintained the account provided during interview. The applicant attributed C\u2019s behaviour to her autism, rather than being as a result of his control. The defence relied on numerous contacts with police and other professionals in which C had not mentioned any violence or had denied any violence had occurred, to the contrary she had described a positive relationship, and she made no mention of any sexual abuse or misconduct. 10. At trial, Counsel for the applicant submitted that once the Jury had heard the evidence of Jennifer Beadle they would not have been able to put it out of their minds and that only by discharging the jury could the situation be rectified. The Judge ruled that if the jury were told that the witness was wrong, and there was nothing on the safeguarding records at the time to suggest any sexual assault, then the trial could continue. The Prosecution were prepared to make that admission and the application to discharge the jury was refused on that basis. 11. In passing sentence the Judge considered the numerous convictions recorded against the applicant, including his committing a series of burglaries whilst on bail and awaiting trial for the instant offences. Those matters are not the subject of these applications but in essence the judge also sentenced the applicant for two other indictments ["the Newcastle indictment" and "the Exeter indictment"] for domestic night-time burglaries, the theft of vehicles with keys from those offences, and assaulting a police officer when in custody for those offences. 12. The Judge found the rape fell into harm category 2 under the Sentencing Council Guideline, on the basis C was particularly vulnerable given the controlling relationship she had endured for a number of years and she had suffered severe psychological harm. The Judge found culpability category A on the basis of the previous violence used against the victim. An offence in category 2A has a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment, with a range of 9-13 years. 13. The judge found there were mitigating factors including an element of remorse and for the applicant\u2019s mental disorder that reduced his culpability and the Judge had in mind the principle of totality. She assessed the applicant as dangerous and found he presented a significant risk of committing further specified offences which would cause serious physical or psychological harm to one or more people. 14. The judge then sentenced the applicant as follows: Rape: 12 years' imprisonment with an extended licence of 8 years Coercive control: 4 years concurrent. Burglaries ("the Newcastle indictment") 12 months, concurrent. Burglaries and associated offences on ("the Exeter indictment") 3 years, consecutive. The total sentence passed, therefore, was 23 years made up of a 15-year custodial element and an 8-year extended licence. 15. We turn to the grounds of appeal against conviction. The two grounds originally advanced were: (1)The judge should have discharged the jury after Ms Beadle\u2019s comment about a record of abuse, and. (2)The conviction for rape is unsafe as it is so inconsistent with the acquittals on all the other counts alleging sexual offences. That second ground of appeal is no longer pursued before us today. 16. The grounds of appeal against sentence submit that: (1)The judge passed too long a term for the offence of rape, and (2)The extended licence period was manifestly excessive. 17. Of the two grounds of appeal against conviction originally put forward, we share the view of the Single Judge that they are not arguable. irst, the jury were told the witness Jennifer Beadle was wrong. We see no basis whatsoever to believe the jury would have paid that mistaken comment any heed at all. Secondly, the test applied before this Court will find differing verdicts amount to a basis for appeal is a high one. It is not met in this case. Juries are entitled to accept parts of what a witness says and be unsure about other claims. That is what this jury did and it affords no basis to argue the rape conviction is unsafe. Ms Hall, who has represented the applicant both in written and oral submissions today, does not pursue that ground and she is wise not to do so. 18. On the grounds of appeal against sentence, we agree with the Single Judge that they are not arguable: (1) On the rape count the judge was sentencing after a trial, which left her in the best possible position to assess the offence. She amply justified her choice of category 2A under the Sentencing Council Guideline. She was dealing with a man with a very bad criminal record. As the judge was passing a concurrent term for coercive control, she was entitled to elevate the lead sentence, for rape, in the manner she did. Further and very significantly, the rape count encompassed at least two rapes, whereas the Sentencing Council Guidance is for a single offence. The sentence of the 12 years' custodial element was one the Judge was fully entitled to impose. (2) The Judge was also in the best possible position to assess the extent and potential longevity of the applicant\u2019s dangerousness, such as to impose the long extended sentence. The offences were not only the violent anal rapes but the prolonged coercive control. The applicant has a long and very serious criminal record. Even on bail the applicant committed a further assault on a police officer. There is no basis for us to regard the licence term as either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. (3) We would add that the terms imposed for the Newcastle and Exeter indictments were modest, presumably as the judge had in mind the need for her to have regard to totality. 19. We therefore dismiss the renewed applications on the two original grounds of appeal against conviction and the renewed application for leave to appeal sentence. 20. Since the Single Judges\u2019 decisions, a further ground has put forward in an application to amend the grounds and seek leave to appeal on this ground. It has been, we may say with considerable skill and force of expression by Ms Hall in representing this applicant. In summary: (1) In November 2024, after the applicant\u2019s conviction, sentence and refusal of leave to appeal conviction by the Single Judge, relatives of the applicant were clearing out a house where he and C used to stay. They found a mobile phone which, it transpired, seemingly belonged to C and contained messages from her to the applicant in October 2021, thus within the indictment period. (2) Those messages contain numerous apologies from C to the applicant, for having repeatedly lied in the course of their relationship. (3) It is argued by Counsel, Ms Hall, that in a case where the jury were, on the sexual counts, having to judge the rival accounts of the applicant and C, those admissions of lying would have been highly significant, not least in a trial which resulted in a number of acquittals of other sexual allegations. (4) This ground of appeal thus argues that these messages render the conviction for rape unsafe. 21. There may be powerful counter arguments about whether the applicant could have deployed these messages, seemingly addressed to him after all, at trial and whether at the time they were sent, the respondent can point to a context that proffers an explanation unconnected to C\u2019s account of the rapes that founded the conviction on count 4 at trial. Nonetheless, in our view these are issues that need to be examined more fully. 22. We therefore refer this single ground of appeal to the Full Court. We make the following orders: (1)We grant leave to amend the ground of appeal to add this point. (2)We refer the new ground of appeal only for hearing by the Full Court. (3)We refer the issue of whether to admit the fresh evidence and whether to grant leave to appeal to the Full Court. (4)The respondent should attend at that hearing. (5)If the Full Court give permission to appeal, both parties should be ready to proceed to the full appeal at the next hearing (thus there will be only one further hearing). (6)The applicant\u2019s Solicitors should serve a witness statement narrating the course of the appeal, when the material came to light and how and when it was put in the new application, and with attempts to acquire phone download material at trial, and what such material showed. That statement should be served by 4.00pm on 6 January 2026. (7)The applicant to write and serve a statement dealing with what he knew of the text messages at the time of trial and why he made no reference to them at trial by 4.00 pm on 6 January 2026. (8)The respondent to notify the applicant of which of his witnesses (including the applicant) they require to attend for cross examination, andthe respondent to have permission to serve further evidence by 4.00 pm 14 February 2026. The applicant to notify by 4.00 pm within 7 days thereafter if they require that evidence to be called. (9)The estimated length of hearing is one day. (10)The applicant to be produced in person or in default by video link. (11)We grant a representation order for junior Counsel and her Solicitor for the preparation and presentation of the application and, if leave is given, the appeal. (12)Both parties to upload skeleton arguments, a bundle of all witness statements and relevant exhibits, and an agreed bundle of authorities by 4.00 pm on 28 February 2026. (13)If any further directions are sought, the parties should seek to agree them and notify Bennathan J when they have done so, any disagreements should be raised with Bennathan J on behalf of the Court. 23. Ms\u00a0Hall, if it helps, I will email these directions to our Associate very shortly if you want to check them as we are conscious there are deadlines for you to meet. 24. LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS, SENIOR PRESIDENT OF TRIBUNALS: The only other direction is to be listed — when did we get to — 14\u00a0March. 25. MR JUSTICE BENNATHAN: We get to 28\u00a0February, so to be listed so soon as possible thereafter. 26. LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS, SENIOR PRESIDENT OF TRIBUNALS: To be listed first available date after 14\u00a0March. That then pushes into after Easter. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

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

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MR JUSTICE BENNATHAN: 1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person\u2019s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,7875,7621,8348,8347],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-569013","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-years","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Brett Wight - 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\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Brett Wight\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MR JUSTICE BENNATHAN: 1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person\u2019s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/\" \/>\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=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"11 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-brett-wight\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-brett-wight\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Brett Wight - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-15T12:40:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-brett-wight\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-brett-wight\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-brett-wight\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v Brett Wight\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"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\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Brett Wight - 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\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Brett Wight","og_description":"MR JUSTICE BENNATHAN: 1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person\u2019s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"11 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/","name":"R v Brett Wight - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-15T12:40:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-brett-wight\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v Brett Wight"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","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\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/569013","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=569013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=569013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=569013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=569013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=569013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=569013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=569013"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=569013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}