{"id":658721,"date":"2026-04-23T12:05:39","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:05:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:05:39","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:05:39","slug":"r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Andrew William John Vowles"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is an\u00a0appeal against sentence following the grant of\u00a0permission by\u00a0the single Judge. The appeal has been argued before us this morning on the appellant\u2019s behalf by\u00a0Mr\u00a0Williams, who was also counsel for him at the sentencing hearing below. We are grateful to\u00a0him for his succinct and realistic submissions. We have also had the benefit of the attendance on behalf of\u00a0the Crown from Miss\u00a0Knight, although we did not find it necessary to call upon her for oral submissions. 2 On 16\u00a0February\u00a02022 in the Crown Court at Cardiff, following an earlier guilty plea by\u00a0the appellant, HHJ Richard Williams\u00a0sentenced the appellant to\u00a0a\u00a0term of imprisonment of\u00a07\u00a0years and 6\u00a0months for the offence of causing death by\u00a0dangerous driving, contrary to section\u00a01\u00a0of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The appellant was also disqualified from driving for a\u00a0total period of\u00a08 years and 9 months, comprising an\u00a0extension period to\u00a0reflect the time that he\u00a0would spend in custody of\u00a045\u00a0months, and an operative\u00a0disqualification period of\u00a05 years, following his release. An order for an extended retest was also made. The appellant was also in breach of\u00a0a\u00a0suspended sentence order that had been imposed upon him only one month before this offence, and therefore he\u00a0was re-sentenced, along with that index offence, on 16\u00a0February\u00a02022. However, that particular sentence, which was activated, was made to\u00a0run concurrently to the term of imprisonment on the more serious charge. Therefore, it had no effect upon the overall term of imprisonment which he\u00a0was ordered to\u00a0serve. 3 The person who died as a\u00a0result of\u00a0the appellant's dangerous driving was Danielle Andrews. She was at the time of the offence, which took place on 27 November 2020, 28\u00a0years old and she had four small children. We appreciate that in hearing an\u00a0appeal of\u00a0this nature, the victim's family and friends, and members of the public, may feel that a\u00a0cold and dispassionate discussion has taken place in court that pays limited attention to\u00a0the central fact that a\u00a0person, loved by\u00a0many and sorely missed, has died as\u00a0a direct result of\u00a0a\u00a0criminal offence. We are anxious to dispel any such impression and wish to\u00a0make it clear that the court is very much aware that offences such as\u00a0these, directly involve the death of\u00a0a\u00a0real person much loved by\u00a0family and friends. Nothing that the court can do will either bring her back, or reduce the distress which her family and friends have and will continue to\u00a0suffer. 4 The facts of the appellant's offending are as follows. On the evening of\u00a027\u00a0November\u00a02020\u00a0Miss\u00a0Andrews and the appellant, who were in a\u00a0relationship together, checked into a\u00a0hotel for the weekend in Cardiff city centre. The appellant had collected her in his Volkswagen Golf motor car and there is CCTV footage which shows them arriving and parking at\u00a0the hotel. During the course of\u00a0the night there was some sort of\u00a0disturbance within their hotel room and complaints were made about the noise by\u00a0other customers of the hotel. A\u00a0fire alarm was activated within their room. Following a discussion with the hotel staff, the two of\u00a0them decided to\u00a0leave and at about 3.45\u00a0a.m. in the early morning of\u00a0the next day they left together in the appellant's car. They drove together through the deserted city centre of\u00a0Cardiff. Text messages on one of the appellant's phones showed that he\u00a0had arranged to\u00a0buy some more cocaine, cocaine having been consumed by\u00a0them earlier in the evening. It\u00a0was raining very heavily. Nobody knows exactly what took place in the hotel room between them, or the nature of relations between them when they left. The next morning the hotel staff found both a broken mirror, and blood, in the hotel room, but by then Miss Andrews was dead. 5 There is CCTV footage of\u00a0their journey through the city centre and it is obvious to the court from viewing that footage that the appellant, who was driving the car, was doing so at some increasing speed, if not somewhat erratically. The roads were deserted, but the car can be seen driving in the middle of the road, partly on the opposite carriageway, and at what appears to be in excess of the speed limit. Regardless of the driving in the city centre itself, there can be no doubt about what then occurred. At around 4.06\u00a0a.m. the appellant was driving the car along a\u00a0slip road which takes one off the A470. The slip road itself has a speed limit of\u00a040\u00a0miles per hour or mph. The slip road is 250\u00a0metres long and rises upwards, where it then turns to\u00a0the left at the end of the slip road. Here, there are traffic lights where the slip road meets the main gyratory or roundabout system. Those traffic lights had been showing a\u00a0red signal for 14\u00a0seconds, and the appellant drove towards them, up the slip road at speeds of between 62 and 64 mph. This is, self-evidently, very much in excess of\u00a0the 40 mph speed limit, and paying no attention to\u00a0the red light. Rather than negotiate the bend, and come to a stop at the red light, the appellant continued to\u00a0drive in a\u00a0straight line making no attempt to navigate around the left hand bend. He made no attempt to\u00a0brake either, and continued onwards in a\u00a0straight direction, hitting the kerb where the road bends to\u00a0the left. This caused the appellant's vehicle to\u00a0cross a\u00a0stretch of\u00a0grass, before becoming airborne, narrowly missing an\u00a0upright post. The car was, quite literally, launched into the air. The vehicle continued at speed, through the air, across two lanes perpendicular to\u00a0its direction of\u00a0travel, any traffic on those lanes having the benefit of a\u00a0green traffic signal. Luckily, there were no cars on those two lanes of\u00a0traffic. 6 The Volkswagen Golf continued through the air, and subsequently collided with the grass verge and heavy metal railings or crash barrier on the other side of the two lanes, this crash barrier being demolished in the process. The main impact to the car was on the front passenger side of\u00a0the vehicle. The car then continued at around 43\u00a0miles an\u00a0hour through the crash barrier and was now launched from the top of\u00a0what is a\u00a0very steep bank, of about seven metres in depth, into dense woodland on the other side of the road. It rotated forward clockwise, and collided with large trees until it came to\u00a0rest on its roof upside down. Once again, the heaviest impact had been on the front passenger side of the vehicle. All of\u00a0this is captured on CCTV, which the court has viewed. It\u00a0is very shocking to\u00a0watch \u2013 the car appears at speed, launches into the air, crosses the two lanes whilst airborne and crashes down the bank and into the trees. The photographs of\u00a0the damaged vehicle show the effects of\u00a0the very considerable impact and the extensive damage that was caused to\u00a0the car. The total distance travelled by\u00a0the car after it first hit the kerb, until it came to rest, was 65\u00a0metres. That distance clearly demonstrates the high speed with which the Golf drove along the slip road and drove straight on, which is what launched it into the air. The wheels were not in contact with the road after that, and so its subsequent course of crossing the other two lanes of\u00a0traffic, going through the crash barrier and crashing down into the trees was all the effect of the momentum that the car had at the time it hit the kerb. 7 The appellant, who freed himself from the vehicle despite some injuries, managed to\u00a0flag down a\u00a0passing HGV\u00a0driver about 20 minutes after the car landed. Miss\u00a0Andrews was killed in the impact. Within a\u00a0few minutes of the HGV being stopped, an\u00a0off-duty local traffic police officer also passed the scene, stopped and called for assistance and shortly afterwards other police colleagues arrived and the vehicle was located. The vehicle was so badly crushed that it\u00a0was difficult to\u00a0remove Miss\u00a0Andrews at the time even when her seatbelt was cut. She was pronounced deceased at\u00a0the scene at around 5.10\u00a0a.m. 8 The appellant was subsequently conveyed to\u00a0hospital to\u00a0treat his injuries and blood samples were taken. Toxicology evidence showed that the appellant had recently taken cocaine and there was a reading of\u00a0254\u00a0micrograms of cocaine per litre of blood, 50 micrograms per litre being the legal limit. Although there was alcohol in his blood, he\u00a0was within the legal limit for alcohol when driving. The car was examined and there was no evidence that there was any mechanical defect which could have been a\u00a0contributory factor to\u00a0the collision. 9 On 4 December 2020 he was released from hospital and was arrested by\u00a0the police. In interview the appellant gave no explanation for the fatal collision and subsequently answered "no comment" to\u00a0questions asked by\u00a0the police. At a\u00a0second interview the appellant also answered "no comment". The circumstances in which the appellant came to\u00a0drive straight on, at a\u00a0speed of\u00a0over 60\u00a0mph on the slip road, ignoring both the speed limit of 40\u00a0mph, the red light and the approaching left-hand bend are entirely unclear both then and indeed now. There has been no explanation for this driving provided by\u00a0the appellant and he has made no attempt to assist the crash investigation by answering the questions that were put to him by the police. 10 Turning to\u00a0his previous convictions, he had three convictions for six unrelated offences, spanning from 20\u00a0May 2020 to 28\u00a0October\u00a02020. His previous convictions included the offences for which he\u00a0was in breach of\u00a0a\u00a0suspended sentence order, and he\u00a0was re-sentenced for that along with the index offence on 16\u00a0February\u00a02022. The suspended sentence order had been imposed upon him for harassment and breach of a restraining order in respect of\u00a0his former partner, and for destroying and damaging her property. It was imposed by\u00a0Gwent Magistrates, and in fact, during 2020, as\u00a0we have observed, he\u00a0had been before the courts on a\u00a0number of\u00a0occasions in May and August and\u00a0also in October 2020. He also had nine penalty points on his licence, three of which were for speeding and six of which were for driving whilst uninsured. 11 The Pre-sentence Report noted that the appellant claimed not to\u00a0be\u00a0able to remember the incident and that he was working in the London area during the week as\u00a0a\u00a0water engineer, and he had a\u00a0good work record prior to the events. His injuries from the accident had led to\u00a0his work situation changing, and as a result, he\u00a0was at that point in receipt of\u00a0benefits. He admitted to substance abuse over a\u00a0number of\u00a0years but did not accept that his cocaine use that night would have affected his driving. 12 The sentencing judge also had the victim personal statement from Angela Morgan before him, which he considered. The sentencing judge explained that in his judgment this was an\u00a0offence of\u00a0level\u00a01\u00a0culpability and that the manner in which the vehicle was driven in the place that it was driven, and in those circumstances, justified the finding that this was driving in flagrant disregard for the rules of\u00a0the road. It\u00a0was, in any event, agreed between the parties that this was driving within Category 1 of\u00a0the definitive guideline. Before considering any additional aggravating or mitigating factors or credit for plea, the sentencing judge took the start point provided by the guideline of\u00a0eight years' imprisonment and then included as\u00a0aggravating factors that the appellant was subject to\u00a0a\u00a0recently imposed suspended sentence and that he had significant levels of cocaine breakdown products in his blood. The judge considered that these features required an\u00a0increase in sentence to ten years. He then applied the discount for the plea of\u00a0guilty which had not been tendered at\u00a0the earliest opportunity but still justified a\u00a0reduction of\u00a025 per cent. 13 The grounds of\u00a0appeal are twofold. Firstly, it\u00a0is said by Mr\u00a0Williams that the starting point taken by the judge, by\u00a0which he\u00a0means the ten years prior to\u00a0discount for plea, was well in excess of the starting point for the level\u00a01\u00a0offence of\u00a0eight years. Secondly, it is said that the resulting seven years, six\u00a0months' prison sentence is manifestly excessive. 14 The second ground is the test that will be applied by this court on an appeal against sentence. Essentially, what is said is that the sentencing judge double counted by\u00a0reaching 10\u00a0years on the basis that the cocaine use was one of\u00a0those features which categorised this offence as\u00a0falling within level 1. It\u00a0is sensibly accepted by Mr Williams that the figure for discount of 25\u00a0per cent cannot be challenged. 15 We are grateful to\u00a0Mr\u00a0Williams for his submissions, who sought to persuade us that the resulting sentence of\u00a0seven years, six months is manifestly excessive and that the judge moved too high within the range for this category of\u00a0offence. 16 We are, however, entirely unpersuaded by\u00a0those submissions. This was, in our judgment, a\u00a0dreadful piece of\u00a0highly dangerous driving that was entirely correctly described by\u00a0the judge as showing a\u00a0flagrant disregard for the rules of\u00a0the road, involving as it is did excessive speed and at night in very heavy rain. The failure even to attempt to\u00a0turn to\u00a0the left as\u00a0the slip road moved round to the left to\u00a0the red traffic light, and also ignoring the red traffic light completely, would of themselves as\u00a0features of\u00a0driving lead to\u00a0that conclusion, a\u00a0point which Mr\u00a0Williams sensibly accepted. 17 Indeed, the guidelines themselves, when explaining the determinants of seriousness, state: "[…] a\u00a0prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving AND\/OR consumption of\u00a0substantial amounts of\u00a0alcohol or drugsleading to gross impairment […]" will be determinants that place the case in level 1. Here, in our judgment, the deliberate course of\u00a0very bad driving puts this as a\u00a0level\u00a01\u00a0offence absent the drug use. 18 As\u00a0correctly noted by\u00a0the judge, there are two significant additional aggravating factors. Firstly, the appellant was in breach of\u00a0the suspended sentence order that had been imposed upon him only one month before. Correctly, in terms of the consideration of\u00a0totality, having ordered that to\u00a0be\u00a0served concurrently, the only way that aggravating factor could be reflected was by\u00a0increasing the sentence on the count of\u00a0causing death by\u00a0dangerous driving. Secondly, not only had the appellant been using cocaine that evening, but when his blood was analysed at\u00a0the hospital, the toxicology evidence showed that the amount of\u00a0cocaine in his bloodstream was over five times higher than the legal limit. That is a separate significant aggravating factor, and in our judgment, was properly reflected with a\u00a0further increase above the level\u00a01\u00a0starting point. Both of these significant factors had to be taken into account by increasing the sentence. They could not sensibly, and should not have been, ignored. The sentencing judge needed to take them into account, and properly did so, explaining his reasoning, and applying the increase to the sentence that he considered they merited. 19 In our judgment, the sentencing judge carefully considered all the relevant circumstances of\u00a0this tragic case and conducted a\u00a0careful sentencing exercise that correctly reflected the aggravating factors. This resulted in a\u00a0sentence which, in our judgment, cannot be faulted. It\u00a0is not a\u00a0sentence that we consider can be described as\u00a0manifestly excessive and there is no basis for it to\u00a0be\u00a0disturbed by\u00a0this appellate court. 20 It follows, therefore, that in those circumstances the appeal is dismissed. __________<\/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 FRASER: 1 This is an appeal against sentence following the grant of permission by the single Judge. The appeal has been argued before us this morning on the appellant\u2019s behalf by Mr Williams, who was also counsel for him at the sentencing hearing below. We are grateful to him for his succinct and realistic submissions. We have also…<\/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":[7633,7635,7621,8348,8347],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-658721","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-driving","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-years","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Andrew William John Vowles - 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-andrew-william-john-vowles\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Andrew William John Vowles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is an appeal against sentence following the grant of permission by the single Judge. The appeal has been argued before us this morning on the appellant\u2019s behalf by Mr Williams, who was also counsel for him at the sentencing hearing below. We are grateful to him for his succinct and realistic submissions. We have also...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\/\" \/>\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-andrew-william-john-vowles\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Andrew William John Vowles - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T10:05:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\\\/#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 Andrew William John Vowles\"}]},{\"@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 Andrew William John Vowles - 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-andrew-william-john-vowles\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Andrew William John Vowles","og_description":"MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is an appeal against sentence following the grant of permission by the single Judge. The appeal has been argued before us this morning on the appellant\u2019s behalf by Mr Williams, who was also counsel for him at the sentencing hearing below. We are grateful to him for his succinct and realistic submissions. We have also...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\/","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-andrew-william-john-vowles\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\/","name":"R v Andrew William John Vowles - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T10:05:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-andrew-william-john-vowles\/#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 Andrew William John Vowles"}]},{"@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\/658721","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=658721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=658721"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=658721"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=658721"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=658721"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=658721"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=658721"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=658721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}