{"id":653463,"date":"2026-04-23T01:04:24","date_gmt":"2026-04-22T23:04:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-katie-weeks\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T01:04:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-22T23:04:24","slug":"r-v-katie-weeks","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-katie-weeks\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Katie Weeks"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: 1 The\u00a0provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, no matter relating to the\u00a0person who benefits from those provisions shall, during that person's lifetime, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the\u00a0victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless it is waived or lifted in accordance with s.3 of the Act. 2 On 13\u00a0November\u00a02019, following a trial at Bournemouth Crown Court before HHJ Climie, the\u00a0applicant (who was then aged 36) was convicted of three counts of causing or inciting a\u00a0child under 13 to engage in sexual activity not involving penetration contrary to s.8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, two offences of taking indecent photographs contrary to s.1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and two counts of distributing indecent photographs contrary to s.1(1)(b) of the same Act. 3 She was sentenced by the\u00a0same judge to nine\u00a0years' imprisonment on each of the causing or inciting counts, those sentences to run concurrent with each other, and to shorter concurrent sentences on the other counts. 4 The\u00a0single judge has referred her application for an\u00a0extension of time in the\u00a0amount of 697 days and for leave to appeal against sentence to the\u00a0full court. 5 Mr\u00a0Robinson KC appears for the applicant. He was not trial counsel. Facts 6 The\u00a0applicant was having an\u00a0affair with a\u00a0committed paedophile named Gareth Southcombe. She used her own son, who was aged between 22 and 24\u00a0months during the\u00a0indictment period, as a\u00a0sexual prop. Chat logs recovered from Southcombe's phone demonstrated that Southcombe was quite openly a\u00a0paedophile with a sexual interest not just in young children, but in the\u00a0victim in particular. The\u00a0chat logs demonstrated that the\u00a0applicant, rather than expressing distaste or disgust at Southcombe's sexual interest in children, encouraged and fuelled it and on some occasions initiated the subject herself. Not only did she openly discuss the victim in a sexual context with Southcombe, but she set up and captured images of herself engaging in sexual activity with her son. Southcombe was a\u00a0willing recipient. He knew that in respect of the two images of the victim found on his telephone that he was receiving contemporaneous, or near contemporaneous, images of the applicant abusing her son for his sexual pleasure. Whilst there is no evidence of any direct request from Southcombe that led to the\u00a0two images being sent, he did not disguise either his delight or interest in such images. 7 The\u00a0offences came to the\u00a0attention of the National Crime Agency in\u00a0May\u00a02018, when that agency had cause to investigate Southcombe's online activity. This led to him being arrested at his place of work in Poole Marina\u00a0on 23\u00a0May\u00a02018. On arrest, he was holding a telephone which was found to contain two indecent images of the victim. The first was an image of the\u00a0victim licking the applicant's breast. This became the\u00a0subject of Counts 1 to 3 on the indictment. The second was an image of the\u00a0victim touching the\u00a0applicant's vagina. This came to be Counts\u00a04 to 6 on the indictment. The phone also contained a\u00a0photograph of the victim placing a\u00a0drill to the\u00a0applicant's nipple, which was not charged as an\u00a0indecent image, although the\u00a0applicant's staging of this came to be charged as Count\u00a07. During a\u00a0search of Southcombe's home, a\u00a0desktop computer was seized. On it were a number of indecent and extreme images. The\u00a0initial examination of Southcombe's telephone and the\u00a0images on it led police to attend the\u00a0applicant's home address where she lived with her husband and the victim. 8 The\u00a0applicant was arrested and gave no comment in interview. Examination of the applicant's telephone revealed very little. No messages to or from Southcombe were found, but in the\u00a0notes section of the telephone was a\u00a0message dated 20\u00a0April\u00a02018 asking Southcombe to confirm that all photographs and videos had been deleted. Examination of Southcombe's telephone yielded far more information. There were a\u00a0number of chat logs which included discussions between Southcombe and other paedophiles, many of whom were later prosecuted for a range of child sex offences. The\u00a0chats were highly explicit and involved discussions about child abuse. These included chat logs between Southcombe and the applicant spanning the\u00a0period 6\u00a0August\u00a02017 to\u00a0October\u00a02017, which was the\u00a0tail end of an apparent\u00a0five-year relationship between them. 9 Of particular note were chats of 6\u00a0August\u00a02017 in which the\u00a0applicant sent the\u00a0photograph of the victim licking her breast. That photograph was taken at the applicant's home address moments before it was sent. In the discussion that followed, Southcombe told the\u00a0applicant "So it turns out you are a\u00a0better peado than me." A little later, the applicant told Southcombe that she had kissed the\u00a0victim's "willy". The\u00a0chat the next day was similar in tone, with\u00a0Southcombe discussing masturbating over images of the victim sent to him by the\u00a0applicant, also referring to an image of the victim touching the applicant's vagina. It was unknown when that imagine was sent to him. 10 It continued the\u00a0following day with the\u00a0applicant seeming to suggest that she was masturbating with the\u00a0victim next to her. On 10\u00a0August\u00a02017, Southcombe said in a\u00a0message "young is v v good. Think we need to discuss young a\u00a0lot more don't we?" to which the\u00a0applicant responded "yeah." There followed a\u00a0chat where the\u00a0applicant sent Southcombe a\u00a0photograph of her when she was seven\u00a0years old. The\u00a0chat continued on 12 August\u00a02017 when a\u00a0sexually suggestive imagine of the\u00a0victim placing a toy drill into the applicant's mouth was sent, after which the\u00a0applicant said "getting a good drilling here." The\u00a0following day the applicant and Southcombe discussed the\u00a0photograph and the applicant introduced the\u00a0victim to a\u00a0sexually fuelled discussion, saying the\u00a0victim made her "horny" and was a "mini porn star." In the\u00a0following days there was further discussion of sexual activity with the victim. 11 On 7\u00a0October\u00a02017 the\u00a0applicant was on a\u00a0family holiday in Cornwall. She sent Southcombe a\u00a0picture of the victim pressing a toy drill on to her exposed nipple. The\u00a0image was deliberately staged. This was Count\u00a07. On 18\u00a0October\u00a02017 the\u00a0applicant openly discussed sexual activity with the victim and what would happen if she and Southcombe had children together. On 24\u00a0October\u00a02017 Southcombe said "You are not allowed sex play with your son" and the applicant replied "Damn". 12 In\u00a0August\u00a02018 the applicant asked to be re-interviewed. She gave her account of her relationship with Southcombe, claiming that she did what he said because she felt trapped and controlled by him. She said that other than sending the\u00a0photograph of the victim licking her breast, she had never sent any other photographs of the victim to Southcombe. She denied knowing that Southcombe had a\u00a0sexual interest in children. A\u00a0third interview took place in\u00a0October\u00a02018 after a\u00a0full forensic examination of Southcombe's telephone had been completed. In it the\u00a0applicant described Southcombe's talk about children as fantasy. When asked by officers if she had abused her own child for Southcombe, she replied "yeah". The\u00a0applicant said she was aware that Southcombe gained sexual gratification from the photographs of the victim that she sent him, but did not know that she was putting the\u00a0victim at risk. Sentence 13 In passing sentence, the\u00a0judge noted that neither the\u00a0applicant nor Southcombe had a previous record of offending. He dealt with the harrowing facts of this offending. He noted that the matters charged as caused or inciting fell within Category\u00a02A of the Guidelines, which gives a\u00a0starting point of eight\u00a0years. He said that the starting point was aggravated significantly by the\u00a0fact of multiple offences over a\u00a0period of time. The\u00a0level of abuse of trust was also a\u00a0factor and the victim's very young age. The\u00a0judge said he had guarded against double counting, but still the\u00a0offences fell towards the\u00a0top of the range. As mitigation, he took account of her good character and her demonstration of some insight. He went on to say that the taking of photographs fell within Category\u00a02 of the\u00a0relevant guideline with a\u00a0start point of two\u00a0years but, taking the\u00a0aggravating features into account, the offences fell at the top of the range which was four years' custody. He said that he had intended to pass a\u00a0sentence of 10\u00a0years' imprisonment, but having heard from the applicant's counsel he was willing to reduce that to nine years' imprisonment to reflect the\u00a0mitigation advanced. Concurrent sentences of four years for the counts of taking photographs were imposed and 21 months for each two of the offences of distributing the\u00a0photographs. In the\u00a0course of his comments, the judge referred in terms to the\u00a0pre-sentence report and to the\u00a0other material provided to the\u00a0court as part of the applicant's case on mitigation. 14 Southcombe was charged with possession of indecent images of children. He was sentenced to two\u00a0years' imprisonment. He had pleaded guilty to those charges at the first opportunity. Grounds of Appeal 15 By grounds of appeal drafted by Mr\u00a0Robinson, the\u00a0applicant argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive, advancing two grounds: (1) The\u00a0starting point should have been reduced to\u00a0reflect the\u00a0fact that the offending behaviour was towards the\u00a0lower end of the scale for offences of this type. (2) The\u00a0sentence should have been reduced more to allow for the applicant's personal mitigation. Reliance was placed on the case of R v YZ (Andrew Barker) [2019] EWCA Crim 466, noting paras 42 to 47 in particular. 16 Mr\u00a0Robinson listed various mitigating factors at para.5.3 of the grounds and we set those out as the\u00a0following list: no previous convictions; first time in prison; exemplary conduct, as set out in the references provided to the\u00a0court; since conviction, she has demonstrated insight into her offending behaviour; emotional immaturity; delay to sentence caused by Covid 19; pregnant at the time of third interview; second child taken from her after she gave birth to him; did not see victim, her first child, for five months after her arrest; divorced; lost house; lost job; and groomed by Southcombe, who was connected to a\u00a0paedophile ring. 17 We are grateful to Mr\u00a0Robinson for his focused submissions. At today\u2019s hearing, he emphasised three points in particular. First, that the\u00a0offences were towards the\u00a0lower end of the scale applying Category\u00a02A. Second, that the\u00a0judge double counted when he elevated from the start point to take account of the victim's youth and the\u00a0extreme abuse of trust. Third, that the judge had inadequate regard to mitigation. Conclusion 18 There is no doubt that this is a\u00a0troubling case. We have reflected carefully on the points that have been made by Mr\u00a0Robinson and on all the\u00a0papers in the\u00a0case to which we have had regard. 19 We regret that we are not persuaded that we should grant leave in this case. It is our conclusion that this sentence was not even arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, those being the criteria we must apply. 20 We deal with the points raised by Mr\u00a0Robinson in sequence. 21 First, looking at the categorisation of these offences, we agree that Category\u00a02A was plainly applicable to the\u00a0causing or inciting offences. Under the\u00a0guideline, the category start point is eight\u00a0years in a\u00a0range of five to 10\u00a0years' custody, but that start point is for a\u00a0single offence by a\u00a0first offender. We are not persuaded that the judge was in error in adopting the\u00a0guideline start point of eight years as his starting point before adjustment. We accept that the range of activities which may be charged under s.8 varies and it may be possible to think of more serious examples. But on any view this was serious offending. The\u00a0applicant knew full well what part she was playing in her son's abuse and she offended voluntarily. 22 In our judgment, it is not correct to focus solely on the physical aspects of the abuse in question. It is necessary to look more broadly at the harm inflicted and the\u00a0culpability which is involved. Just looking at harm, in our judgment, it was arguable that this could have gone up to Category 1, given the\u00a0extreme youth of this particular victim. We do not criticise the\u00a0judge's conclusion, supported by prosecution and defence at trial, that this was Category 2A offending. Overall, we are satisfied that eight\u00a0years was the\u00a0appropriate starting point for the judge to take. We have had regard to the\u00a0authority of YZ, as we have been asked to do, but we conclude that that is a\u00a0single case which in the\u00a0end turned on its own facts. It does not support any wider proposition about how a judge should go about determining sentence. In that case, we note that the judge arrived at a\u00a0sentence of nine\u00a0years after trial and that the Court of Appeal was not minded to interfere with that sentence, although they thought it was lenient. 23 The\u00a0judge, having arrived at the start point of eight\u00a0years, identified aggravating features. One of the most significant was the\u00a0fact of multiple offending. It was not just the\u00a0three offences of incitement which were to be reflected in the\u00a0lead sentence, but also the\u00a0photographing and distribution of some of those images. It was therefore appropriate to go up from eight\u00a0years to reflect the\u00a0totality of the offending. 24 We move then to Mr\u00a0Robinson's second point as to whether there has been double counting. In moving upwards from the start point of eight\u00a0years, the\u00a0judge noted the\u00a0gross breach of trust and the\u00a0extremely young age of this victim. We do not consider that it was double counting to refer to those factors when it came to determining the\u00a0extent of aggravation. It is right that those factors could equally have been used as adjustments to arrive at the right effective starting point within the\u00a0category. These were important and serious aspects of this offending and they warranted an\u00a0upwards adjustment from the eight year start point. Whether that was done by treating them as aggravating factors or as factors which elevated the start point for sentence, is of no consequence. 25 We turn then to Mr\u00a0Robinson's third point, which goes to mitigation. The\u00a0judge took account of the\u00a0mitigation in lowering the\u00a0sentence from the notional 10\u00a0years to nine\u00a0years. We accept the\u00a0various points made by Mr\u00a0Robinson in his grounds of appeal and we accept that there was significant mitigation in this case. But in the round, we conclude that the mitigation was considered by the\u00a0judge and that he made an\u00a0appropriate reduction. 26 We accept that this applicant has lost a\u00a0great deal. That is of course extremely regrettable. The consequences of her offending are doubtless felt not just by her, but by her family, the\u00a0victim and her second son as well as those who are currently looking after the\u00a0victim. The applicant will be well aware that her offending has much wider consequences than just on herself. But those points were all considered by the judge and appropriately reflected in the final sentence. 27 In conclusion, we can find no fault with this sentence and we refuse the\u00a0application for permission to appeal against it. 28 In those circumstances, we also refuse the\u00a0application for an\u00a0extension of time, because extending time will serve no purpose. If we had found merit in the\u00a0application for permission, we would have been willing to extend time in the\u00a0circumstances which have been explained to us. __________<\/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":"

LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: 1 The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, no matter relating to the person who benefits from those provisions shall, during that person’s 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7875,7621,32919,7652,8347],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-653463","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-southcombe","kji_keyword-victim","kji_keyword-years","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Katie Weeks - 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-katie-weeks\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Katie Weeks\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: 1 The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, no matter relating to the person who benefits from those provisions shall, during that person's 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...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-katie-weeks\/\" \/>\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=\"13 \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-katie-weeks\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-katie-weeks\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Katie Weeks - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-22T23:04:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-katie-weeks\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-katie-weeks\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-katie-weeks\\\/#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 Katie Weeks\"}]},{\"@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 Katie Weeks - 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-katie-weeks\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Katie Weeks","og_description":"LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: 1 The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, no matter relating to the person who benefits from those provisions shall, during that person's 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...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-katie-weeks\/","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":"13 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-katie-weeks\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-katie-weeks\/","name":"R v Katie Weeks - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-22T23:04:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-katie-weeks\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-katie-weeks\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-katie-weeks\/#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 Katie Weeks"}]},{"@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\/653463","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=653463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=653463"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=653463"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=653463"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=653463"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=653463"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=653463"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=653463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}