{"id":658738,"date":"2026-04-23T12:06:24","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:06:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amina-hussain\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:06:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:06:24","slug":"rex-v-amina-hussain","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amina-hussain\/","title":{"rendered":"REX v AMINA HUSSAIN"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is an\u00a0appeal brought as of right under s.13 of the\u00a0Administration\u00a0of\u00a0Justice\u00a0Act 1960 from an\u00a0order for immediate custody imposed for contempt of court. 2 The appellant, aged 21, on 11\u00a0May\u00a02022 in the\u00a0Crown Court at Snaresbrook admitted having committed a\u00a0contempt of court there on 4\u00a0May\u00a02022. 3 On 23\u00a0August\u00a02022 an\u00a0order was imposed by HHJ\u00a0Canavan at the same court of four\u00a0months' custody. We note in passing that although the\u00a0sentencing judge's remarks referred to detention in a\u00a0Young Offenders' Institution, as the\u00a0appellant was 21\u00a0years old the\u00a0relevant order was in fact one of custody in prison for contempt of court, as correctly recorded in the\u00a0Crown Court record sheet and the formal order. 4 This matter arose as follows. On Wednesday, 4\u00a0May\u00a02022 the\u00a0appellant was due to be tried on a\u00a0charge of assault on an\u00a0emergency worker. The\u00a0trial was listed before HHJ\u00a0Connell. Shortly after the jury had been empanelled, it emerged that the appellant had been recording some of the proceedings on her tablet. She surrendered this at the judge's direction and appears to have instructed her counsel that she had recorded some of the judge's homily because she had a\u00a0poor memory. However, on inspection, the\u00a0tablet turned out also to contain two relevant deleted videos: one of these was a\u00a0video recording lasting several minutes in which the\u00a0jury were selected and sworn in. Although the\u00a0camera was not facing the\u00a0jury, the\u00a0recording included their names. The\u00a0other video clip showed part of the courtroom for a\u00a0short time and had a\u00a0graphic superimposed on it consistent with it having been shared on social media. It further emerged that the appellant had shared on Snapchat a\u00a0video clip showing jurors leaving the\u00a0courtroom. That clip had by the\u00a0time it was identified been viewed 66 times. 5 The\u00a0trial judge recorded that the\u00a0appellant did not at any stage seek to apologise for her conduct, but conveyed through her counsel that she had not seen any of the various signs which are displayed within the\u00a0building stating that it is prohibited to take videos or photographs, notwithstanding the\u00a0fact that she would have been expected to pass at least three such warning signs between entering the\u00a0building and entering the\u00a0courtroom. 6 A\u00a0pre-sentence report was obtained which indicated that the appellant had no previous convictions, albeit she was awaiting trial for the alleged assault which we have already mentioned. The\u00a0report indicated that the appellant was remorseful for what had taken place in the\u00a0courtroom and had tried to apologise to the\u00a0judge. The\u00a0author of the report concluded that the appellant evidently did not grasp the\u00a0seriousness of being involved in the\u00a0criminal justice system due to immaturity and lack of experience and being part of a\u00a0generation where social media is significantly intertwined with day-to-day lives, including personal matters. The\u00a0author concluded that the appellant posed a\u00a0low risk of committing a\u00a0harmful offence within the next two years and a\u00a0low risk of serious harm to identifiable groups. 7 Other personal mitigation was identified in the\u00a0form of significant utility and other debts, part-time employment which the\u00a0appellant would lose if committed to prison, positive family relationships and community ties, and ongoing custody proceedings before the\u00a0Family Court. The\u00a0report also referred to the\u00a0removal of the\u00a0appellant's child from her care in\u00a0October\u00a02020, which had been a\u00a0traumatic experience. It was submitted to the\u00a0sentencing judge in this connection that committal to prison would have a\u00a0harmful effect on the\u00a0custody proceedings, as well as potentially the\u00a0appellant's relationship with her young child for whom she cared on a\u00a0regular basis. At the hearing, we were informed by Mr\u00a0Morris, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, that her child is two years old. 8 The sentencing judge regarded the\u00a0most serious aspect of the appellant's offending as her having videoed the\u00a0jury being sworn in, recording their names and having recorded and published on social media images of the jury leaving the\u00a0courtroom. Such offending struck at the heart of the criminal justice system, bearing in mind that people would be reluctant to serve as jurors if they were afraid that their images could be shared with the public. The\u00a0judge considered that the appellant could not have failed to see the\u00a0numerous signs in the\u00a0court building stating that videos and photographs must not be made. The\u00a0appellant knew she had done wrong, as evidenced by her attempts to delete some of the recordings she had made. Even after taking account of the appellant's mitigation, her offending was so serious as to make immediate custody the\u00a0only appropriate punishment. 9 On this appeal, the\u00a0appellant, as we have mentioned, has been represented by Mr\u00a0Andrew Morris, from whom we have received both written and oral submissions for which we are grateful. The\u00a0appellant accepts that this was a\u00a0serious matter and that the custody threshold was passed. However, Mr\u00a0Morris submits that this was not a\u00a0case where an\u00a0immediate committal to prison was required in order to achieve the\u00a0appropriate punishment or deterrent. There was no suggestion that the\u00a0appellant posed a\u00a0risk to others and she had no previous convictions. Mr\u00a0Morris submits that the court could achieve the\u00a0appropriate deterrence required by marking the\u00a0custodial threshold as being passed, but suspending it for a\u00a0fixed period while the\u00a0applicant awaited her trial. The\u00a0appellant had, he submits, the\u00a0ability to comply with a suspended prison sentence, as she had shown since her charge for the index offence of assaulting an emergency worker, during which period she had been on bail for a\u00a0significant period of time and has not reoffended. 10 At the hearing before us, we have had the\u00a0advantage of further information on instructions which Mr\u00a0Morris has been able to place before this court which, understandably, was not before the\u00a0sentencing judge. In particular, Mr\u00a0Morris has emphasised before us the\u00a0impact which the\u00a0custodial sentence imposed is having and will have on the\u00a0appellant's young child. This is because of the family proceedings which are currently taking place. He informs us that as a\u00a0result of her being in custody, the\u00a0appellant has already missed one hearing in those proceedings in which she represents herself. He has drawn our attention to the\u00a0family's circumstances and the\u00a0difficulty that others, including the\u00a0appellant's partner and grandmother, have had in looking after the young child. Mr\u00a0Morris submits that the\u00a0court can refer by analogy to the\u00a0guideline on when a\u00a0sentence of custody may be appropriately suspended, even though this is not strictly speaking relevant. He also reminds us that this was the\u00a0first period of custody which this appellant has had to serve. 11 Strictly speaking, a committal for contempt of court is not a\u00a0sentence of imprisonment within the\u00a0ordinary criminal law regime: see s.222(2) of the\u00a0Sentencing Act 2020 or the\u00a0Sentencing Code and\u00a0R v Yaxley-Lennon [2018] EWCA Crim 1856, [2018] 1 WLR 4500 at para.4 in a\u00a0judgment given by Lord Burnett of Maldon, Chief Justice. The\u00a0provisions of Chapter\u00a05 of Part 10 of the Sentencing Code which deal with suspended sentences imposed for criminal offences do not apply to committals for contempt: see s.305 of the Code. Further, the\u00a0community requirements referred to in Chapter 5 of the\u00a0Code are not available in such cases. The\u00a0closest equivalent to a\u00a0suspended sentence of imprisonment is a suspended committal order on terms made under the court's inherent jurisdiction: see Yaxley-Lennon at para.57. 12 The\u00a0question we have to decide is whether the\u00a0order made was wrong either because the\u00a0judge made an error of principle or because the\u00a0punishment imposed was manifestly excessive. Although they are not directly applicable for the reasons we have given, we consider by way of analogy the\u00a0guidelines on the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences. On that basis, the\u00a0key question is whether the judge was entitled to conclude that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody. 13 In our judgment, the\u00a0judge was entitled to reach that conclusion and was right to do so. In particular, we endorse the\u00a0judge's comments that the recording of the\u00a0names of jurors and the\u00a0publication of their images on social media strikes at the heart of the criminal justice system. The\u00a0prohibition of the making and publication of images and court proceedings is made clear in every courtroom and exists for good reason. The\u00a0protection of jurors is an\u00a0especially important aspect of the restrictions that apply. The\u00a0prevalence of the use of social media makes it, if anything, even more important that these matters are clearly understood. Taking and publishing images of jurors is liable to result in immediate custody. In the present case, notwithstanding the personal mitigation available to the\u00a0appellant, we consider that the judge was entitled to make an\u00a0order for immediate custody. 14 We must however consider a\u00a0second submission which Mr\u00a0Morris has advanced before this court. He submits that even if immediate custody was required and appropriate in this case, the\u00a0court should consider reducing the\u00a0term of the\u00a0sentence imposed. In particular, he submits that the\u00a0importance of deterrence in cases of this kind has already been achieved through the short sharp shock of the\u00a0appellant having served a\u00a0custodial sentence. He reminds this court that the appellant has to date been in custody for about three weeks. He invites this court to take the\u00a0view that the\u00a0purpose of the\u00a0sentence has now been achieved and the\u00a0term should be reduced in such a\u00a0way as would result in effect in immediate release from custody. 15 Not without some hesitation, having regard to the\u00a0personal mitigation available to this appellant, including in particular the\u00a0impact on her young child, we have come to the\u00a0conclusion that the period of four months is manifestly excessive. We emphasise that we have had the\u00a0advantage of information which was not fully available to the\u00a0sentencing judge. However, we do not accept Mr\u00a0Morris's submission that the sentence should be reduced to the\u00a0extent that he has submitted. In our judgment, the\u00a0just and proportionate sentence in all the circumstances of this case will be one of two months. 16 For the sake of completeness, we note that the Crown Court's order was recorded in the\u00a0record sheet as a\u00a0contempt by breach of s.17 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. That section prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of material disclosed for the purposes of criminal proceedings and is thus not the\u00a0relevant provision. Rather, the\u00a0conduct in question was in addition to being in breach of s.41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, a\u00a0criminal contempt of court and punishable on that basis. This point does not, however, affect the\u00a0substance or outcome. 17 For the reasons we have given, we allow the\u00a0appeal to the\u00a0extent that we substitute a\u00a0custodial period of two\u00a0months for that imposed by the\u00a0judge. __________<\/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":"

LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is an appeal brought as of right under s.13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 from an order for immediate custody imposed for contempt of court. 2 The appellant, aged 21, on 11 May 2022 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook admitted having committed a contempt of court there on 4 May 2022. 3…<\/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":[7633,14926,7621,7707,8348],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-658738","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-custody","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-order","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nREX v AMINA HUSSAIN - 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-amina-hussain\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"REX v AMINA HUSSAIN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is an appeal brought as of right under s.13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 from an order for immediate custody imposed for contempt of court. 2 The appellant, aged 21, on 11 May 2022 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook admitted having committed a contempt of court there on 4 May 2022. 3...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amina-hussain\/\" \/>\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=\"9 \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-amina-hussain\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-amina-hussain\\\/\",\"name\":\"REX v AMINA HUSSAIN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T10:06:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-amina-hussain\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-amina-hussain\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-amina-hussain\\\/#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 AMINA HUSSAIN\"}]},{\"@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 AMINA HUSSAIN - 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-amina-hussain\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"REX v AMINA HUSSAIN","og_description":"LORD JUSTICE SINGH: 1 This is an appeal brought as of right under s.13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 from an order for immediate custody imposed for contempt of court. 2 The appellant, aged 21, on 11 May 2022 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook admitted having committed a contempt of court there on 4 May 2022. 3...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amina-hussain\/","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":"9 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amina-hussain\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amina-hussain\/","name":"REX v AMINA HUSSAIN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T10:06:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amina-hussain\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amina-hussain\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-amina-hussain\/#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 AMINA HUSSAIN"}]},{"@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\/658738","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=658738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=658738"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=658738"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=658738"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=658738"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=658738"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=658738"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=658738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}