{"id":658816,"date":"2026-04-23T12:19:59","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:19:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:19:59","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:19:59","slug":"r-v-joshua-jason-porter","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Joshua Jason Porter"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is a\u00a0renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence following refusal by the\u00a0single judge. The\u00a0applicant also requires an\u00a0extension of time of 106 days for the renewal of the application for permission, a\u00a0point to which we shall return at the end of this judgment. 2 The\u00a0applicant has been most ably represented today by Ms\u00a0Quinton-Carter of counsel who has been appearing on his behalf pro\u00a0bono. We are very grateful to her for her succinct and helpful submissions, which we have found of great assistance. 3 On 2\u00a0July\u00a02021 the\u00a0applicant was committed to the\u00a0Crown Court for sentence by the\u00a0Magistrates' Court, having pleaded guilty to two counts of drugs possession contrary to s.5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972. One of these counts was for possession of Class A drugs, namely cocaine, and the other for possession of Class B, namely cannabis. He also pleaded guilty to an\u00a0offence of possession of a\u00a0bladed article contrary to s.139(1) and (6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. 4 On 27\u00a0September\u00a02021 he refused to appear at a\u00a0Plea and Case Management Hearing on three other charges and not guilty pleas were entered on his behalf to each of those charges. He did, however, plead guilty to them on 12\u00a0November\u00a02021. Those other charges were all of his being concerned in the supply of a\u00a0controlled drug contrary to s.4(3)(b) of the\u00a0Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Two of these charges were for Class A drugs, namely crack cocaine and diamorphine, and one for Class B, namely cannabis. 5 He was sentenced by Mr\u00a0Recorder Eissa QC in the\u00a0Crown Court at Basildon on 12\u00a0November\u00a02021 in respect of all of these charges. The\u00a0sentencing judge in the Crown Court sentenced the applicant without a\u00a0pre-sentence report, although a\u00a0short report was available from the\u00a0Probation Service in respect of his response to earlier community disposals for previous convictions. Section 33 of the Sentencing Act 2020 states that the full court must now obtain a\u00a0report, unless it agrees one was unnecessary or is not now necessary. We do not consider such a\u00a0report is necessary and we state that expressly here. 6 Before reciting the\u00a0sentences passed on each of the\u00a0counts, we should explain that the two counts contrary to s.4(3)(b) of the\u00a0Misuse of Drugs Act are characterised by s.313(5) of the Sentencing Act 2020 as Class A trafficking offences. Previous convictions that the applicant had included offences that are also characterised as previous drug trafficking offences. Those convictions are those dated 21\u00a0January\u00a02014 and\u00a07\u00a0February\u00a02019. Accordingly, and\u00a0in accordance with s.313 of the\u00a0Sentencing Act 2020, the\u00a0sentencing judge was obliged to impose an\u00a0appropriate custodial sentence of seven\u00a0years, which applied unless the\u00a0court was of the\u00a0opinion that there were particular circumstances which related to any of the offences or the offender that would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances. Discounts to that statutory minimum for pleading guilty are permitted, but by s.73(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2020 credit for a\u00a0guilty plea in such circumstances to be applied must not reduce the\u00a0appropriate custodial sentence below 80 per\u00a0cent of that minimum of seven\u00a0years. The\u00a0judge in his sentencing remarks did not find any circumstances that would make it unjust for him to impose the\u00a0minimum term, but stated that he would reduce it by the\u00a0maximum permissible period. 7 He went on to pass the\u00a0following sentences on the different counts. For the two counts of being concerned in supplying a\u00a0controlled drug of Class A to another, he passed sentences of imprisonment of five years and six\u00a0months on each. Those sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On the third count of being concerned in supplying a\u00a0controlled drug of Class B to another, he passed a\u00a0sentence of 18\u00a0months' imprisonment, also to run concurrently. On the two possession of drugs counts, namely possessing a\u00a0controlled drug of Class A and possessing a\u00a0controlled drug of Class A diamorphine, he passed two sentences, each of one month of imprisonment, also to run concurrently; and for possessing a\u00a0bladed article he passed a\u00a0sentence of five months' imprisonment, also concurrent. The\u00a0overall total sentence was therefore one of five years and six\u00a0months' imprisonment. He also made other relevant orders, including imposing a\u00a0statutory surcharge order and one for forfeiture, destruction and disposal of the drugs and for the mobile telephone seized upon arrested. In calculating the relevant period for the two most serious charges of being concerned in the\u00a0supply of Class A drugs, the\u00a0judge fell into arithmetic error and passed sentences that fell below the\u00a080 percent minimum required under s.73(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2020. This is a\u00a0point to which we will return. 8 The\u00a0facts of the offending are as follows. For the offences to which he first pleaded guilty, these arose on 24\u00a0August\u00a02019 when police on a\u00a0patrol in the\u00a0Chalvedon area of Basildon received reports of someone drug dealing in the\u00a0area. They saw the applicant a\u00a0short distance away from them and concluded that he matched the\u00a0description given. They stopped him and found upon his person a\u00a0gold tin containing one small package of cocaine and one of heroin with a\u00a0combined weight of 0.2\u00a0grams. The\u00a0applicant had a rucksack with him which was found to contain a small bladed scalpel. The\u00a0applicant was arrested and made full admissions in\u00a0interview about the drugs and said he simply forgot he had the\u00a0bladed article with him in the\u00a0bag. We have seen the\u00a0photograph of the bladed article and it is a\u00a0sharp scalpel or box cutter-type knife. 9 For the more serious offences, police officers were looking at a\u00a0telephone belonging to a\u00a0known Class A drug user and they saw offers to purchase drugs from a number which ended with the digits 983. Further enquiries were made into that number and it was found that over a\u00a0period of about six weeks between the\u00a0start of\u00a0May\u00a02021 and the end of\u00a0June\u00a02021 that number had sent out a\u00a0total of 138 bulk messages with offers to supply both cocaine and heroin. From those messages offering drugs, there was a\u00a0take up of just under one\u00a0half. 10 On\u00a025\u00a0August\u00a02021, which is the\u00a0day after the\u00a0possession offences which we have just explained, police officers attend the\u00a0applicant's address. He was not present and they did not find any drugs, but they did find a\u00a0set of scales. Later that day he contacted the\u00a0police to find out why his property had been searched. Officers attended once more and found that the applicant had on his person a\u00a0mobile telephone that ended with the digits 983. Checks on the telephone showed there were 11 bulk messages sent out advertising cannabis for sale. He was arrested and provided a\u00a0full comment interview, saying it was his telephone but he had lent it to a\u00a0friend. By his guilty pleas, he accepted that he was involved in drugs supply of both Class A and Class B drugs. 11 His previous convictions are that prior to these six offences he had nine convictions for 26 offences between 21\u00a0January\u00a02014 and 20 October 2020. These included two offences of conspiracy to supply a\u00a0controlled drug of Class A and one of producing a\u00a0controlled drug of Class B. For these he received a\u00a0suspended sentence order of eighth\u00a0months' imprisonment suspend for 12\u00a0months and that was imposed on 21\u00a0January\u00a02014. He also had two offences of possessing a\u00a0controlled drug of Class A with intent to supply, three of committing a\u00a0supply of controlled drugs of Class A on the premises and one of possession of a\u00a0bladed article. For these offences, he had received a\u00a0two-year Community Order with a\u00a0drug rehabilitation requirement and an unpaid work requirement, that sentence being imposed on 7\u00a0February\u00a02019. Prior to these offences, he had not previously served a\u00a0custodial sentence. As we have noted, importantly these previous convictions included two for Class A drug trafficking as defined by s.313(5) of the Sentencing Act 2020 and this led to the\u00a0seven-year minimum sentence to which we have already referred. 12 The grounds of appeal initially were, firstly, that the judge imposed a\u00a0sentence which was wrong in principle in respect of Counts 1 and 2 in that he imposed a\u00a0sentence in line with s.313 of the Sentencing\u00a0Act 2020 when it was unjust to do so in the particular circumstances. A\u00a0different way of expressing this is it is effectively said on the\u00a0applicant's behalf that the sentencing judge or this court ought to have found or to now find that there were or are particular circumstances which related to any of the offences or the offender that would make it unjust to apply the\u00a0s.313 minimum sentence in all the circumstances. 13 There was a\u00a0second ground of appeal, which was that the sentence in respect of Count\u00a03 was wrong in law as that was not an\u00a0offence that fell foul of the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, but that ground was abandoned when it was identified that in fact the\u00a0sentencing judge had passed a\u00a0sentence of 18\u00a0months concurrent on that count and not five and a\u00a0half years concurrent as had been initially thought by the applicant\u2019s advisers. This misapprehension was corrected by the\u00a0applicant's legal representatives and helpfully confirmed again today by Ms\u00a0Quinton-Carter. 14 We therefore have considered the first and only ground. We have considered the\u00a0careful submissions made today and the authorities provided on the applicant's behalf, both those referred to at para.32 to 35 of the\u00a0advice and grounds and the others that have been sent to the\u00a0court. We are unable to accept that the applicant's personal circumstances made it unjust to impose the\u00a0statutory minimum. We agree with the single judge who stated the\u00a0following in refusing leave to appeal: "The learned Recorder who sentenced you was entitled to conclude that your circumstances and those of your offending did not render it unjust to impose the statutory minimum sentence. It was not wrong in law, nor can it be said to be manifestly excessive, to sentence you on that basis. In particular, there is no rule of law that sentencing at the minimum is unjust for a street dealer who is involved in dealing as a by-product of their own addiction. The judge was reasonably entitled to the view that your case in fact fitted the intention of Parliament to impose the minimum sentence, to give you ample time in custody to address your addiction as well as to serve as proper punishment (and deterrent to others) in the face of repeat offending of this kind." 15 There is nothing we can usefully add to those remarks. We do not consider the\u00a0challenge to the\u00a0sentence passed by the\u00a0learned sentencing Recorder to be reasonably arguable and we dismiss it. 16 We therefore return to the\u00a0calculation of the relevant term. Twenty per\u00a0cent of seven\u00a0years is 1.4\u00a0years. Taking account of the fact that there are 12\u00a0months in a\u00a0year, 0.4 of a\u00a0year is when expressed in months 4.8\u00a0months. The\u00a0learned recorded applied a\u00a0reduction of 1.5\u00a0years or one year and six months, which is therefore in excess of the maximum permitted reduction of 20 per\u00a0cent. The\u00a0sentence passed therefore contravenes the\u00a0express requirement of the\u00a0legislative provision committing the\u00a0court to reduce the\u00a0maximum sentence imposed for such an\u00a0offence. However, this error is in the\u00a0applicant's favour. This court has no power to increase a\u00a0sentence on appeals such as this one. This is not an Attorney General's reference under s.36 of the\u00a0Criminal Justice Act 1988 and we are precluded by the provisions of s.11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 from imposing a\u00a0sentence that would result in the\u00a0applicant being more severely dealt with, taking the\u00a0case as a\u00a0whole, than he would have been in the\u00a0court below. Given the overall term of the\u00a0resulting sentence passed upon him in the Crown Court below is five years and six\u00a0months, we cannot interfere with that error or correct it, and it remains undisturbed. The\u00a0arithmetic error to which we have referred therefore gives the\u00a0applicant a\u00a0sentence very slightly less than he ought to have been given under the\u00a0statute but by an amount of only 1.2 months. 17 Finally, we return to the\u00a0question of an\u00a0extension of time of 106 days. The\u00a0explanation given to the\u00a0court by the\u00a0applicant's solicitors in their letter of 1\u00a0August\u00a02022 is that notification having been given to the\u00a0applicant that the single judge had refused leave, difficulties at the prison with booking, and obtaining a\u00a0video link for instructions were such that this was not possible until a\u00a0period of over three\u00a0months had passed. We have dealt in this judgment with the merits of the renewed application in any event and have considered it as though it were brought within time. However, having concluded there is no merit in it and that the application is not reasonably arguable, there would be no point in extending time and we refuse to do so. 18 We therefore dismiss the\u00a0application for an\u00a0extension of time and also dismiss the\u00a0renewed application. __________<\/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 a renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge. The applicant also requires an extension of time of 106 days for the renewal of the application for permission, a point to which we shall return at the end of this judgment. 2 The applicant has been most ably…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7632],"kji_keyword":[7875,12876,10954,8348,8399],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-658816","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-penal","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-class","kji_keyword-drugs","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-sentencing","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Joshua Jason Porter - 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-joshua-jason-porter\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Joshua Jason Porter\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge. The applicant also requires an extension of time of 106 days for the renewal of the application for permission, a point to which we shall return at the end of this judgment. 2 The applicant has been most ably...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\/\" \/>\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=\"11 \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-joshua-jason-porter\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Joshua Jason Porter - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T10:19:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\\\/#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 Joshua Jason Porter\"}]},{\"@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 Joshua Jason Porter - 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-joshua-jason-porter\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Joshua Jason Porter","og_description":"MR JUSTICE FRASER: 1 This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge. The applicant also requires an extension of time of 106 days for the renewal of the application for permission, a point to which we shall return at the end of this judgment. 2 The applicant has been most ably...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\/","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":"11 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\/","name":"R v Joshua Jason Porter - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T10:19:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-jason-porter\/#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 Joshua Jason Porter"}]},{"@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\/658816","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=658816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=658816"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=658816"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=658816"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=658816"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=658816"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=658816"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=658816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}