{"id":658714,"date":"2026-04-23T12:05:15","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:05:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:05:15","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:05:15","slug":"rex-v-ross-lambert","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/","title":{"rendered":"REX v ROSS LAMBERT"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is an\u00a0appeal against sentence brought with the limited leave of\u00a0the single judge. 2 On 21\u00a0February\u00a02022 in the Crown Court at Liverpool the appellant pleaded guilty to\u00a0a\u00a0charge of\u00a0arson, contrary to\u00a0section\u00a01(1) and (3) of\u00a0the Criminal Damage Act 1971. On 16\u00a0March\u00a02022 the appellant, then aged 28, was sentenced by\u00a0Mr\u00a0Recorder Harris to\u00a0an\u00a0extended sentence of\u00a0nine years, comprising four and a\u00a0half years\u2019 custodial term and an\u00a0extension period of\u00a0four and a\u00a0half years. He\u00a0also made a\u00a0restraining order to\u00a0prevent the appellant contacting the victim in this case for twelve years and imposed a\u00a0surcharge order. 3 The facts can be summarised as follows for present purposes. The complainant was Mr\u00a0Stephen Gilmore. His Jaguar motor vehicle was targeted because he\u00a0had wrongly been suspected in the community of\u00a0being a\u00a0paedophile. At 1.30\u00a0a.m. on 24\u00a0October\u00a02021 two people approached the vehicle. The appellant had a\u00a0hammer and smashed the window. The second male lit a\u00a0petrol bomb and put it into the window which had been smashed. The fire was put out by\u00a0the complainant who was in his house at the time and heard the banging outside and saw what had gone on. The appellant had wiped his hand on the bonnet of the car, having cut his hand while smashing the window and was identified through DNA which was recovered. He\u00a0was arrested on 20\u00a0January\u00a02022 but made no comment in interview. The total damage to\u00a0the car was \u00a313,000 and it\u00a0was written off. 4 The appellant had 15 convictions for 22 offences between\u00a0February\u00a02007 and\u00a0June\u00a02018, including 12 offences against the person. The antecedents included offences of\u00a0battery in 2007, 2008, 2015, 2017 and 2018. They also included an\u00a0offence of\u00a0assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2008; and wounding, contrary to\u00a0section\u00a020 of\u00a0the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in 2009, for which he\u00a0received an\u00a0eight-month detention and training order. Most seriously, they included an\u00a0offence of\u00a0causing grievous bodily harm with intent, false imprisonment and kidnapping, for which on appeal there was substituted by this court a\u00a0seven-year extended sentence, comprising a\u00a0custodial term of\u00a0four years and an\u00a0extension period of\u00a0three years. Initially, in the crown court there had been imposed an\u00a0indeterminate sentence for public protection. That was in 2011. There were also offences of criminal damage in 2008 and 2009. 5 It\u00a0is important, briefly, to\u00a0pause to\u00a0consider the facts of\u00a0the previous section\u00a018 offence, for which we have a\u00a0police report. Those facts state that the appellant had with others assaulted a\u00a0man hard to\u00a0the face causing him to\u00a0fall to\u00a0the floor unconscious for a\u00a0while. When he\u00a0came around he\u00a0was met by\u00a0a\u00a0barrage of\u00a0punches and kicks from, amongst others, this appellant. When he\u00a0attempted to\u00a0run away in an\u00a0effort to\u00a0stop them kicking him in the face, he\u00a0felt hot, scalding water being poured on to\u00a0his stomach. He\u00a0said that he\u00a0needed to\u00a0go\u00a0to\u00a0hospital, but this appellant said he\u00a0was going nowhere and needed to\u00a0be\u00a0tortured, and started laughing. The abuse continued later with this appellant striking the victim several more times. 6 We have been reminded by\u00a0Ms\u00a0Snowdon, who has appeared at this hearing for the appellant, that the appellant was only aged\u00a017\u00a0at that time, and that offending was over 10\u00a0years ago. We have that well in mind. 7 In his sentencing remarks the Recorder said that the risks inherent in this type of\u00a0misconceived and vigilante behaviour are obvious. The risk of\u00a0the car exploding and causing damage to\u00a0other property is also obvious. Fire is uncontrollable, especially when spread by\u00a0a flammable liquid. This was a\u00a0residential area and anybody trying to\u00a0help, such as\u00a0passers-by, the police, or other services would have been placed at risk. Further, the Recorder said that the effect on Mr\u00a0Gilmore was an\u00a0aggravating feature. Mr\u00a0Gilmore described himself as, &quot;Feeling like a\u00a0sitting target&quot;, and was looking to\u00a0move home because of\u00a0this incident. The loss of\u00a0his car had also affected him financially. 8 The Recorder said that in accordance with counsel&#039;s submissions, this case fell into Category\u00a02A by\u00a0reference to the definitive guideline on such offences, giving a\u00a0starting point of\u00a0two years&#039; custody with a\u00a0suggested range of\u00a0one to\u00a0four years, but he\u00a0continued that there were significant aggravating features. The appellant had committed this offence under the influence of\u00a0alcohol and cocaine. Further, this was clearly a\u00a0pre-planned, targeted attack designed to\u00a0terrify Mr\u00a0Gilmore regardless of\u00a0the possible consequences if the fire had taken hold. 9 The Recorder took into account as\u00a0aggravating factors the appellant&#039;s extensive and concerning criminal record, in particular, the previous section\u00a018 offence to\u00a0which we have referred. It should be noted that inherent in that sentence was a\u00a0finding that the appellant was dangerous in the statutory sense. The Recorder also said that this offence justified a\u00a0deterrent punitive and protective sentence to\u00a0mark the seriousness of the offending and the risks to\u00a0the public. The Recorder noted that the Pre-sentence Report said that there was an\u00a0established pattern of\u00a0intimidating, aggressive and violent offending. The appellant was assessed as\u00a0a\u00a0high risk of\u00a0serious harm to\u00a0known adults. He was also assessed as\u00a0posing a\u00a0high risk of\u00a0serious harm to\u00a0the public. He\u00a0has a\u00a0clear propensity to\u00a0use violence in conflict at times of\u00a0emotional challenge. Further, he clearly lacks insight into the risks that he\u00a0poses and appears to\u00a0lack internal self-control. The Recorder thus found the appellant to\u00a0be\u00a0dangerous. 10 On the other side of\u00a0the balance, the Recorder had regard to\u00a0the mitigation available to\u00a0the appellant, in particular his guilty plea which entitled him to\u00a0a\u00a025\u00a0per\u00a0cent discount. The Recorder had considered what was said in the appellant&#039;s partner&#039;s letter, which we have done as well. We have been reminded at this hearing in succinct and helpful submissions by\u00a0Ms\u00a0Snowdon, that limited though personal mitigation was, there was such mitigation available to\u00a0this appellant. He\u00a0has, as\u00a0his partner said in her letter, supported her during a\u00a0particular a\u00a0period of\u00a0illness. He\u00a0had himself had an\u00a0unhappy childhood, including domestic abuse. 11 The Recorder considered that although the appellant was dangerous, imposing a\u00a0life sentence would be disproportionate in this case. Nevertheless, given the aggravating factors in the case, a\u00a0starting point above the suggested range was appropriate. The Recorder said that if he had been imposing a\u00a0determinate sentence, the least period of\u00a0imprisonment he could have imposed was one of six years&#039; imprisonment. After taking into account the guilty plea, that was reduced to\u00a0four years and six\u00a0months. The risk posed by\u00a0the appellant, in the Recorder&#039;s opinion, necessitated an\u00a0extended sentence with an\u00a0extension period of\u00a0four years and six\u00a0months. The Recorder also imposed the restraining order which we have mentioned, as\u00a0he\u00a0found it to\u00a0be\u00a0necessary and proportionate in terms of the risk posed. 12 The only ground of\u00a0appeal which is now pursued, leave having been granted on this ground only, is that it\u00a0was wrong for the Recorder to\u00a0take a\u00a0starting point which was two years above the top of the range in the sentencing guideline, so that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. 13 A\u00a0second ground, for which leave was refused by\u00a0the single judge, has not been renewed before the full court. That ground was that the Recorder was wrong to\u00a0make a\u00a0finding of\u00a0dangerousness. It has rightly not been pursued before the full court. 14 The Sentencing Council, as\u00a0we have mentioned, has issued a\u00a0definitive guideline for offences of\u00a0arson with effect from 1\u00a0October\u00a02019. Step 1 is to determine the offence category by\u00a0reference to\u00a0culpability and harm. High culpability (A) includes cases where there is a\u00a0high degree of\u00a0planning or premeditation and the use of\u00a0an\u00a0accelerant. Category\u00a01\u00a0harm cases include where there is serious physical and\/or psychological harm caused, serious consequential economic or social impact of\u00a0the offence or high value damage is caused. It\u00a0was common ground before the Recorder that this was a\u00a0Category\u00a02\u00a0case in terms of harm because it did not fall within either Category\u00a01\u00a0or Category\u00a03 which covers cases where there is no or minimal physical and\/or psychological harm caused and low value damage is caused. 15 We would pause to\u00a0remark that this case could have been regarded as\u00a0a\u00a0category\u00a01\u00a0case, certainly once one has regard to\u00a0the aggravating features, or it could properly have been regarded as\u00a0being on the cusp between Categories 1 and 2. In any event, the suggested range in a Category\u00a02A case is one to\u00a0four years&#039; custody. As\u00a0the recorder observed, it\u00a0is then possible to\u00a0go\u00a0above the starting point when one has regard to the very serious aggravating features in this case. 16 In our judgment, the Recorder was entitled to\u00a0take a\u00a0starting point of\u00a0six years and then reduce that by\u00a025\u00a0per\u00a0cent to\u00a0reflect the guilty plea. Accordingly, we have come to\u00a0the conclusion that the sentence passed was not manifestly excessive. 17 For the reasons we have given this appeal is dismissed. __________<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ewca\/crim\/2022\/1300\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is an appeal against sentence brought with the limited leave of the single judge. 2 On 21 February 2022 in the Crown Court at Liverpool the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of arson, contrary to section 1(1) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. On 16 March 2022 the appellant, then aged 28,&#8230;<\/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":[7633,7925,8038,8348,8347],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-658714","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-appellant","kji_keyword-offence","kji_keyword-recorder","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-years","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>REX v ROSS LAMBERT - 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\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"REX v ROSS LAMBERT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is an appeal against sentence brought with the limited leave of the single judge. 2 On 21 February 2022 in the Crown Court at Liverpool the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of arson, contrary to section 1(1) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. On 16 March 2022 the appellant, then aged 28,...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/\" \/>\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=\"8 \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\\\/rex-v-ross-lambert\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-ross-lambert\\\/\",\"name\":\"REX v ROSS LAMBERT - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T10:05:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-ross-lambert\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-ross-lambert\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-ross-lambert\\\/#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\":\"REX v ROSS LAMBERT\"}]},{\"@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":"REX v ROSS LAMBERT - 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\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"REX v ROSS LAMBERT","og_description":"LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is an appeal against sentence brought with the limited leave of the single judge. 2 On 21 February 2022 in the Crown Court at Liverpool the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of arson, contrary to section 1(1) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. On 16 March 2022 the appellant, then aged 28,...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/","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":"8 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/","name":"REX v ROSS LAMBERT - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T10:05:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-ross-lambert\/#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":"REX v ROSS LAMBERT"}]},{"@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\/658714","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=658714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=658714"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=658714"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=658714"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=658714"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=658714"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=658714"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=658714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}