{"id":575952,"date":"2026-04-16T08:08:41","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T06:08:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\/"},"modified":"2026-04-16T08:08:41","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T06:08:41","slug":"r-v-istvan-szobollodi","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Istvan Szobollodi"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

(Approved) THE VICE-PRESIDENT: 1. On 22\u00a0April\u00a02024, in the Crown Court at Bristol, Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was found to be in contempt of court and ordered to pay a\u00a0financial penalty of \u00a3700. He now applies for an extension of time of four days to apply for leave to appeal against that finding and that sanction. 2. Summarising the facts briefly, Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was summonsed to attend court for jury service. He was unwilling to act in that role. He was one of a\u00a0panel of prospective jurors who were required to go to a\u00a0particular courtroom for the purposes of a\u00a0ballot of the jury to hear a\u00a0sexual offence trial. The trial was listed before a\u00a0recorder. Before the process of empanelling the jury began, Mr\u00a0Szobollodi sent a\u00a0note to the recorder which said: "I\u00a0personally don't believe the jury system, and I will not participate on any decision making, and I\u00a0can't read the affirmation in the courtroom. In my country, we never practise this system, so it's just strange, alien to me." Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was later to explain that when he said in that note, "I\u00a0can't read the affirmation", he was not referring to any linguistic inability: he was simply emphasising that his principles would not allow him to make the necessary affirmation. 3. Arrangements were made for Mr\u00a0Szobollodi to appear before the recorder so that this matter could be investigated. The recorder considered whether he should deal with the matter himself or refer it to a\u00a0superior judge. In reflecting upon this, the recorder considered section\u00a020 of the Juries Act 1974 (to which we shall return) and also the common law offence of contempt of court. 4. The recorder expressed the initial view that Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was not yet in breach of section\u00a020 of the 1974 Act, because he had answered the jury summons and had attended the court. In the event, the recorder felt it best to refer the matter to a\u00a0senior judge, namely the resident judge at Bristol, and the recorder himself continued with his scheduled trial. 5. Later that day Mr\u00a0Szobollodi appeared before the resident judge (to whom we shall refer for convenience as "the judge"). Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was not represented. 6. After a\u00a0discussion in which Mr\u00a0Szobollodi explained that in his native Hungary there was no equivalent of the jury system, and that he did not believe in the system as operated in this country, the judge explained to him that jury service was an\u00a0obligation of persons resident in this country, who may be punished by way of a\u00a0financial penalty for refusing to do what was required of them. He asked Mr\u00a0Szobollodi, "Is that something that you want to put yourself at risk of or do you want to just think about it and perhaps be prepared to change your mind?" Mr\u00a0Szobollodi made plain that whilst he understood what was being said to him, he was taking a\u00a0principled stance and would not alter his view. 7. The judge said this: "Is that your decision that you simply will not participate if you\u2019re required to be on a jury here? That is a contempt of the English court and that I should fine you. Do you want to say anything more to try and persuade me why I shouldn\u2019t make you pay a financial penalty?" 8. Mr\u00a0Szobollodi gave further explanations as to why he did not believe in the system of jury trial and that there was then discussion as to his financial means. 9. The judge gave a ruling, in which he referred to Mr\u00a0Szobollodi having been discharged from the panel which had been brought before the recorder earlier that day, and referred to his own hearing that afternoon. 10. The judge ruled: "… it is clear that as a matter of principle, which he stands by, the juror indicates that, even if he were forced to remain at court for five or ten days, he simply would not participate in decision making. That is something that I have invited himto reflect upon, and have indicated that I can deal with him by way of a financial penalty for a contempt of court, which he has understood, and I do exactly that, because whatever nationality he is, if he was an English person who was expressing the same views, the result would be exactly the same." 11. The judge then imposed a\u00a0fine of \u00a3700 and gave directions as to time for payment. 12. At the conclusion of that hearing Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was discharged from further attendance at the court and therefore did not take part in any further proceedings. 13. Unhappily, the court office wrongly recorded the judge's decision as a\u00a0conviction and sentence. In a further error, it recorded the decision as a\u00a0finding of contempt of court by breach of section\u00a017 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, a\u00a0statutory provision which is wholly irrelevant to this case. We emphasise that those errors were made in the court office and do not reflect the decision which the judge had pronounced in court. 14. When Mr\u00a0Szobollodi learned that the court record showed a\u00a0criminal conviction, which he feared would result in his being unable to renew his licence as a\u00a0door supervisor, he commenced this appeal. That was four days after the time limit for an\u00a0appeal had expired. Had he been in time, he would have been entitled to appeal as of right. 15. The very unfortunate consequence of the incorrect manner in which the decision had been recorded was that Mr\u00a0Szobollodi did in fact lose his job. We are told today by counsel that it may be that under the rules of the relevant supervising body, even a\u00a0correct recording of a\u00a0finding of contempt would have been an\u00a0impediment to the renewal of the necessary licence; but be that as it may, it appears that the incorrect recording of a\u00a0conviction was the decisive factor. 16. Mr\u00a0Szobollodi now has the benefit of representation by Mr\u00a0Wainwright. The Crown Prosecution Service is not a\u00a0party to this appeal, but the court is grateful to His Majesty's Attorney General for instructing Mr\u00a0Robottom to make written submissions and to appear before us today. The court has been assisted by the submissions of both counsel. 17. The grounds of appeal, briefly summarised, are that: \u2022 First, the matter was dealt with as a contempt of court, it being not entirely clear whether that was under the court's inherent jurisdiction or under section\u00a020 of the Juries Act 1974, and should not have been recorded as a\u00a0criminal offence. \u2022 Secondly, it is submitted that the conduct of Mr\u00a0Szobollodi did not amount to a\u00a0contempt under section\u00a020 of the 1974 Act, and that the court should be slow to expand the common law provisions so as to use the inherent jurisdiction to address a\u00a0matter not covered by express statutory provision. \u2022 Thirdly, that in any event there were fundamental procedural errors in the hearing, which had the result that Mr\u00a0Szobollodi did not receive a\u00a0fair hearing, and on that basis the finding of contempt should be set aside. 18. Summarising very briefly the relevant legal framework, we note that the law relating to contempt of court, which has developed in a\u00a0piecemeal fashion over very many years, is the subject of a\u00a0recent Consultation Paper by the Law Commission. In the context of criminal proceedings, it is the subject of guidance quite recently given to judges and magistrates by the Senior Presiding Judge. The Crown Court has an\u00a0inherent power to deal with contempts of court. We agree with counsel that if a\u00a0contempt is proved and a\u00a0sanction is imposed for it, the court record should not refer to a\u00a0conviction or a\u00a0sentence. The court's decision should be recorded as a\u00a0finding of contempt: see R v Yaxley-Lennon [2018] 2 Cr App R 30. 19. Specific powers in relation to jurors are conferred by section\u00a020 of the 1974 Act, which, so far as relevant for present purposes, provides: "20. Offences: failure to attend, serving while disqualified etc (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) below\u2014 (a) if a person duly summoned under this Act fails to attend (on the first or on any subsequent day on which he is required to attend by the summons or by the appropriate officer) in compliance with the summons, or (b) if a person, after attending in pursuance of a summons, is not available when called on to serve as a juror, or is unfit for service by reason of drink or drugs,. he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (2) An offence under subsection (1) above shall be punishable either on summary conviction or as if it were criminal contempt of court committed in the face of the court. … (4) A person shall not be liable to be punished under the preceding provisions of this section if he can show some reasonable cause for his failure to comply with the summons, or for not being available when called on to serve, and those provisions have effect subject to the provisions of this Act about the withdrawal or alteration of a summons and about the granting of any excusal or deferral." 20. Contempt proceedings in the criminal courts are also the subject of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Rules. Rule 48.5 (so far as material for present purposes) provides: "(1) This rule applies where the court observes, or someone reports to the court\u2014 \u2026 (b) In the Crown Court, a contravention of\u2014 … (ii) section 20 of the Juries Act 1974(2) (disobeying a jury summons); … (f) any other conduct with which the court can deal as, or as if it were, a criminal contempt of court, except failure to surrender to bail under section 6 of the Bail Act 1976. (2) Unless the respondent\u2019s behaviour makes it impracticable to do so,\u00a0the court must\u2014 (a) explain, in terms the respondent can understand (with help, if necessary)\u2014 (i) the conduct that is in question, (ii) that the court can impose imprisonment, or a fine, or both, for such conduct, (iii) (where relevant) that the court has power to order the respondent\u2019s immediate temporary detention, if in the court\u2019s opinion that is required, (iv) that the respondent may explain the conduct, (v) that the respondent may apologise, if he or she so wishes, and that this may persuade the court to take no further action, and (vi) that the respondent may take legal advice; and (b) allow the respondent a reasonable opportunity to reflect, take advice, explain and, if he or she so wishes, apologise. (3) After allowing that opportunity \u2013 a. the court may enquire into the conduct at once; b. the court may postpone the enquiry \u2026 c. \u2026 d. the court may take no further action in respect of the conduct.\u201d Further relevant provision is made in rule 48.8 as follows: "(1) At an enquiry, the court must\u2014 (a) ensure that the respondent understands (with help, if necessary) what is alleged, if the enquiry has been postponed from a previous occasion; (b) explain what the procedure at the enquiry will be; and (c) ask whether the respondent admits the conduct in question. (2) If the respondent admits the conduct, the court need not receive evidence. (3) If the respondent does not admit the conduct, the court must consider\u2014 (a) any statement served under rule 48.7; (b) any other evidence of the conduct served under that rule; (c) any evidence introduced by the respondent; and (d) any representations by the respondent about the conduct. (4) If the respondent admits the conduct, or the court finds it proved, the court must\u2014 (a) before imposing any punishment for contempt of court, give the respondent an opportunity to make representations relevant to punishment and a final opportunity to apologise; (b) in deciding how to deal with the respondent take into account\u2014 (i) the gravity of the contempt (ii) the extent of any admission of the conduct and the stage at which that admission was made (iii) any apology and the stage at which that apology was offered, and (iv) any period during which the respondent was detained pending the enquiry; \u2026 (d) explain, in terms the respondent can understand (with help, if necessary)\u2014 (i)The reasons for its decision, including its findings of fact, and (ii) The punishment it imposes, and its effect …" 21. In the transcript of the brief hearing before the judge, no reference was made to section\u00a020 of the 1974 Act. Mr\u00a0Wainwright submits that it can nonetheless be inferred from reading the transcript that the judge was exercising his power under section\u00a020 to deal with the matter as a\u00a0contempt of court rather than as a\u00a0summary offence, the contempt consisting of a\u00a0breach of the provisions of section\u00a020. 22. We regard this as a\u00a0difficult point, and listening to the submissions of both Mr\u00a0Wainwright and Mr\u00a0Robottom, it appears to us that a\u00a0number of legal issues are raised by the facts which we have briefly summarised. 23. The issues are these: \u2022 First, was the conduct of Mr\u00a0Szobollodi conduct which fell within the ambit of section\u00a020 of the 1974 Act? In this regard, submissions have focused on the statutory language "is not available" when "called on to serve as a\u00a0juror". We have heard submissions as to whether those provisions are fulfilled only when the prospective juror has been required to take his place in the jury box and called upon to take his oath or affirmation, or whether it might be considered at an\u00a0earlier stage, for example when the panel (conventionally of about fifteen prospective jurors) is sent to a\u00a0particular court for the purposes of a particular trial. \u2022 Secondly, if the conduct was not within the scope of section\u00a020, is it nonetheless within the inherent jurisdiction of the court to treat the conduct such as that of Mr\u00a0Szobollodi as a\u00a0contempt of court? On the face of it, we can see no reason of principle why it should not be capable of being so treated. Mr\u00a0Wainwright, however, has vigorously argued against that proposition. 24. These difficult and interesting legal points were not considered by the judge. No submissions were made to him about them, and he therefore gave no considered ruling upon them. This court, as a\u00a0court of review, is therefore put into a\u00a0difficult position, as there is no ruling by the judge specifically addressing jurisdictional points of this nature. 25. What is, however, clear is that the reason why the judge did not hear any submissions about these matters was that Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was not legally represented and did not himself make any submissions to the judge about these matters. That then brings us to the submissions made by Mr\u00a0Wainwright as to procedural failures in the course of the hearing. 26. Summarising the submissions of counsel, Mr\u00a0Wainwright's reasons for contending that Mr\u00a0Szobollodi did not receive a\u00a0fair hearing are as follows. \u2022 First, and in Mr\u00a0Wainwright's submission most importantly, it was not explained to Mr\u00a0Szobollodi that he could seek legal advice, for which Legal Aid would have been available. Mr\u00a0Wainwright relies on the decision in R\u00a0v Crown Court at Guildford ex parte Siderfin (1990) 90 Cr App R 192 in support of his submission that there would have been no reason why Mr\u00a0Szobollodi could not have been granted an\u00a0adjournment if he did wish to take advice. \u2022 Secondly, although the judge stated what Mr\u00a0Szobollodi had done, and Mr\u00a0Szobollodi did not dispute it, Mr\u00a0Wainwright points out that the judge did not explain the precise basis on which Mr\u00a0Szobollodi's actions were said to amount to contempt. \u2022 Thirdly, Mr\u00a0Wainwright submits that Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was not given an\u00a0opportunity to apologise, or a\u00a0final opportunity to apologise, prior to punishment. 27. Mr\u00a0Robottom submits that strict compliance with the provisions of rule 48 is not an\u00a0essential prerequisite of a\u00a0fair hearing. Minor departures from the provisions of the rule may occur but the hearing may nonetheless be fair. Mr\u00a0Robottom accepts that the judge did not specifically ask Mr\u00a0Szobollodi if he admitted the relevant conduct and did not specifically tell Mr\u00a0Szobollodi that he could apologise. Nonetheless the relevant conduct was substantially set out and was not disputed, and the judge twice gave Mr\u00a0Szobollodi the opportunity to think about what the judge had said and to put forward any reason why he should not be ordered to pay a\u00a0financial penalty. 28. Mr\u00a0Robottom acknowledges, however, that this court may regard as a\u00a0more significant feature the fact that Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was not told that he may take legal advice, and was not told that he may wish to take advice as to whether he may have a\u00a0defence in law to the allegation of contempt. 29. With all respect to the judge, we are satisfied that he fell into error in failing at the first stage of the proceedings to explain to Mr\u00a0Szobollodi that he could take legal advice and that a\u00a0reasonable opportunity would be given for him to do so if he wished (rule 48.5(2)(a)(vi) and (b)), and in later failing to explain what the procedure at the enquiry would be (rule 48.8(1)(b). If it were not for those serious procedural errors, we would agree with Mr\u00a0Robottom that the judge had in substance taken the steps required by rule 48, and, if Mr\u00a0Szobollodi had been represented or had been given an\u00a0express opportunity to seek legal advice, this court could have been satisfied that he was not prejudiced by those departures from the precise terms of the rule. 30. But in the absence of a\u00a0clear explanation to Mr\u00a0Szobollodi that he could seek legal advice if he wished ,and a\u00a0clear explanation of what exactly was being alleged against him and what the procedure would entail, the judge was deprived of the opportunity to hear submissions on the important matters which we have mentioned; and Mr\u00a0Szobollodi was deprived of safeguards which should have been afforded to him before a\u00a0serious finding was made against him and a\u00a0significant financial penalty imposed. The finding and penalty therefore cannot stand. 31. The errors which we have identified were not of Mr\u00a0Szobollodi's making. He has paid the financial penalty in full, a\u00a0payment which he will now be able to recover. As we have noted, he has also suffered the loss of his employment. In those circumstances it would be unjust to require him to face a\u00a0rehearing of the issue of contempt. 32. For those reasons, we grant the necessary short extension of time. We allow the appeal, and we quash the finding of contempt of court and the imposition of a\u00a0financial penalty. Mr\u00a0Wainwright, Mr\u00a0Robottom, thank you both very much. Is there any other matter which we need to address which we have not covered? MR WAINWRIGHT: No, thank you. MR ROBOTTOM: No, my Lord. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you both very much indeed. 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":"

(Approved) THE VICE-PRESIDENT: 1. On 22 April 2024, in the Crown Court at Bristol, Mr Szobollodi was found to be in contempt of court and ordered to pay a financial penalty of \u00a3700. He now applies for an extension of time of four days to apply for leave to appeal against that finding and that sanction. 2. Summarising the facts…<\/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":[7892,9242,7621,7634,16946],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-575952","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-conduct","kji_keyword-contempt","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-respondent","kji_keyword-szobollodi","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Istvan Szobollodi - 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-istvan-szobollodi\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Istvan Szobollodi\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"(Approved) THE VICE-PRESIDENT: 1. On 22 April 2024, in the Crown Court at Bristol, Mr Szobollodi was found to be in contempt of court and ordered to pay a financial penalty of \u00a3700. He now applies for an extension of time of four days to apply for leave to appeal against that finding and that sanction. 2. Summarising the facts...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\/\" \/>\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=\"16 \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-istvan-szobollodi\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Istvan Szobollodi - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-16T06:08:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\\\/#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 Istvan Szobollodi\"}]},{\"@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 Istvan Szobollodi - 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-istvan-szobollodi\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Istvan Szobollodi","og_description":"(Approved) THE VICE-PRESIDENT: 1. On 22 April 2024, in the Crown Court at Bristol, Mr Szobollodi was found to be in contempt of court and ordered to pay a financial penalty of \u00a3700. He now applies for an extension of time of four days to apply for leave to appeal against that finding and that sanction. 2. Summarising the facts...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\/","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":"16 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\/","name":"R v Istvan Szobollodi - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-16T06:08:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-istvan-szobollodi\/#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 Istvan Szobollodi"}]},{"@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\/575952","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=575952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=575952"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=575952"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=575952"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=575952"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=575952"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=575952"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=575952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}