{"id":658866,"date":"2026-04-23T12:22:19","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:22:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:22:19","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:22:19","slug":"r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

MR JUSTICE HENSHAW: 1 This is an\u00a0appeal from the\u00a0imposition of a\u00a0restraining order following acquittal pursuant to s.5A of the\u00a0Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 2 The\u00a0appellant, who is 38\u00a0years old, was acquitted on 14\u00a0January\u00a02022 in the\u00a0Crown Court at St\u00a0Albans of one count of stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress, contrary s.4A of the\u00a0Act, the\u00a0prosecution having on the fourth day of the trial decided to offer no evidence. 3 After hearing submissions, the\u00a0judge imposed a\u00a0five-year restraining order prohibiting the\u00a0appellant from contacting his wife, the\u00a0complainant, directly or indirectly, save via solicitors or social services for the purposes of child contact; going to any location where he believed or suspected her to be; contacting directly or indirectly the\u00a0complainant's sister or her husband; and going to the\u00a0sister's address in Letchworth. 4 The\u00a0complainant's evidence was that she and the appellant had been in a\u00a0relationship for ten years and had been married for five of those. They had two children together, now aged six and two. On 8\u00a0December\u00a02019 she fled the\u00a0family home with their children because she had experienced aggressive behaviour and violence from the\u00a0appellant. The\u00a0complainant said that on one occasion the\u00a0appellant had threatened to kill her, on another he threatened to murder her family in front of her, and on\u00a0another occasion he\u00a0told her that if she called the police they would let him go and he would come after her. 5 The\u00a0week before she left, the complainant and the appellant had had an\u00a0argument, during which she said he hit her on the head while she was carrying their young baby. During the\u00a0same week the\u00a0appellant got angry during an\u00a0argument, when the complainant slammed the\u00a0bathroom door in frustration. He threatened, she said, to break her neck if she broke anything in the\u00a0house, and said he would kill all of her family, repeatedly banging on the\u00a0door trying to get into the\u00a0room where she had locked herself and her young son. 6 The complainant said that on 7\u00a0December\u00a02019 the\u00a0appellant became angry when the complainant told him he was not welcome to spend Christmas with her family, because of things he had said. The\u00a0complainant then took their son and went downstairs into the\u00a0kitchen, and the complainant called the\u00a0police. The\u00a0appellant returned and took the complainant's phone from her, at this point carrying a\u00a0knife or meat cleaver in his hand, although that evidence was contested. The appellant prevented the\u00a0complainant from calling the\u00a0police and told her to leave the\u00a0house. When she refused to leave, the\u00a0appellant pushed her on the head with an\u00a0open palm and blocked her from entering the\u00a0living room where the children were. The\u00a0complainant drove to the\u00a0police station. She was able to return home, but the\u00a0police advised her to leave for her safety. The\u00a0complainant followed this advice, moving to live with her sister in Hertfordshire. 7 There was evidence from the\u00a0complainant's nephew that two or three weeks later the\u00a0appellant went to his mother-in-law's address looking for the complainant and their children. He was said to have been not violent or threatening but persistent and determined to find where his wife and children were. 8 On 13\u00a0December\u00a02019 the complainant received an\u00a0email from an\u00a0email address with no identifying name, but evidently from the appellant, although he was at the time on police bail, one condition of which was not to contact her. 9 In\u00a0April\u00a02020, now living in a\u00a0woman's refuge, the\u00a0complainant received a\u00a0call from a\u00a0private number, which turned out to be from the\u00a0appellant, asking after her and the children. She told the\u00a0appellant not to call her again. Thereafter, the\u00a0complainant received daily calls from a\u00a0private number. She was anxious because she did not want to answer calls from private numbers, but knew her support workers called every day to check her welfare. On the occasions when she answered these calls, it was the appellant speaking about how the children needed both their parents. 10 The\u00a0complainant said she changed her phone number, but then received a\u00a0series of six emails from the\u00a0appellant between 5\u00a0May and 20\u00a0June\u00a02020. She was distressed by receiving the\u00a0emails and their religious tone, which she felt to be manipulative. It appears that the\u00a0police bail condition had fallen away by this point. 11 On 23\u00a0June\u00a02020 the\u00a0appellant visited the\u00a0complainant's sister's home, saying he wanted to see his children. The\u00a0sister eventually persuaded the appellant to leave. She accepted that he had been calm on this occasion. 12 On 3\u00a0July\u00a02020 the\u00a0appellant approached the\u00a0complainant while she was with her non-verbal autistic daughter, visiting a\u00a0specialist school in Stevenage that was being considered for the daughter. The\u00a0appellant picked the\u00a0daughter up and gave the\u00a0children presents. (The\u00a0appellant's case is that this visit occurred at the school's invitation.) 13 On 5\u00a0August\u00a02020 the\u00a0complainant's sister was at home when the appellant suddenly banged on the window at the side of their house and\u00a0beckoned her and her husband to come out. Her evidence was that they also heard him banging hard on the door, almost as if he were trying to break it down. The\u00a0husband eventually did go outside and a\u00a0heated argument seems to have occurred, of which the\u00a0sister took a\u00a0video recording. 14 In\u00a0September\u00a02020 the\u00a0complainant received documentation from the\u00a0Family Court about child arrangements, which we understand remain pending. 15 The trial began on Tuesday, 11\u00a0January\u00a02022. There was discussion between the\u00a0parties on the first day about the\u00a0possibility of resolving the\u00a0case by means of a\u00a0restraining order, which at that stage the\u00a0defence indicated they would not contest. During the\u00a0course of the evidence, the\u00a0judge expressed concerns in the\u00a0absence of the jury about whether the\u00a0prosecution case of stalking could be made out. Thereafter, on Thursday,\u00a013\u00a0January, the\u00a0Crown put the\u00a0court on notice that a\u00a0restraining order would be sought if the Crown decided to offer no evidence, and the\u00a0defence indicated that that would be contested. 16 On Friday, 14\u00a0January 2022, shortly before the\u00a0lunch break, the\u00a0Crown indicated that it would offer no evidence, having put the\u00a0defence during the\u00a0morning on notice of that proposed course and of the\u00a0intention to seek a\u00a0restraining order. The\u00a0judge proceeded to hear argument and to make the\u00a0restraining order. It is common ground that the defence did not request an\u00a0adjournment or time to take further instructions, nor apply for the court to hear evidence from the\u00a0appellant. 17 In deciding to impose the\u00a0order, the\u00a0judge referred to the\u00a0complainant's evidence about events that had occurred before their marriage ended and led her to leave the\u00a0appellant and the family home; the\u00a0appellant's visit to his mother-in-law's address; his emails to the\u00a0complainant and attempts to contact her by phone and the distress that this caused her; and his two visits to the\u00a0home of the complainant's sister and her husband. The\u00a0judge noted that whatever the\u00a0appellant's thoughts might be, he was clearly a\u00a0volatile character, matching the\u00a0complainant's statement that he could change and become aggressive. The\u00a0judge considered that the appellant's actions amounted to harassment, and the evidence as a\u00a0whole satisfied him that it was necessary to protect the\u00a0complainant, her sister and her brother-in-law. The\u00a0restraining order would be for a period of five years, although if no problems occurred then the\u00a0appellant would be able to apply to vary the\u00a0order or have it lifted. 18 The\u00a0appellant appeals, by leave of the\u00a0single judge, on the\u00a0grounds that: (i) There was no course of conduct, involving at least two events, amounting to harassment of the complainant's sister or brother-in-law (see Caurti v DPP\u00a0[2001] EWHC (Admin) 867); no evidence of aggression directed at the sister, as opposed to her husband; and no evidence that either of them feared that a\u00a0future event would occur. (ii) There was no evidence that the complainant feared that an\u00a0event would definitely occur: a\u00a0restraining order could not be made to protect a\u00a0person from an\u00a0event they only feared might happen. (iii) In order to ensure equality of arms and a\u00a0fair trial, the\u00a0judge should have allowed the\u00a0appellant to give oral evidence pursuant to s.5A(2A) of the\u00a0Act before considering making a\u00a0 restraining order. Sufficient notice of any such order needed to be given to the\u00a0defendant: see R v K [2011] EWCA Crim 1843 para.14 and R v Trott, Peter [2011] EWCA Crim 2395 para.11. For example, Dr\u00a0Fields noted in oral submissions today that the\u00a0appellant might have given evidence that he was now in a\u00a0relationship with someone else, thus, he submitted, making it less likely that he would seek in future to make contact with the complainant. (iv) The\u00a0sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in that the\u00a0scope and duration of the\u00a0order did not bear any relation to the\u00a0circumstances of the\u00a0original alleged offence. 19 We have heard oral submissions from counsel, Dr\u00a0Peter\u00a0Fields for the appellant and Sophie Quinton-Carter for the Crown, both of whom appeared below, for which submissions we are most grateful. 20 We consider the\u00a0first two grounds of appeal together. Under s.1(1) of the Act read with s.7(3), the\u00a0substantive offence of harassment requires a course of conduct amounting to harassment on at least two occasions in relation to the\u00a0relevant person. However, a\u00a0restraining order under s.5A(1) of the\u00a0Act does not require proof that the substantive offence has occurred. It requires only that the court considers it necessary to make an\u00a0order "to protect a\u00a0person from harassment by the\u00a0defendant". 21 The\u00a0appellant cites R v Qosja, Robert [2016] EWCA Crim 1543 para.35 where it was held that an\u00a0offence of stalking under s.4A(1)(b) (i) of the Act requires proof of conduct that causes a\u00a0person to fear on at least two occasions that violence "will" not "might" be used against them. The\u00a0appellant submits that the same must apply when considering whether there fear of alarm and distress has been caused, that being pursuant to s.7(2) a\u00a0form of harassment, such as to justify a\u00a0restraining order. 22 In our view, however, the question under s.5A does not directly concern the\u00a0nature of the subjective fears of the person or persons whom the\u00a0proposed restraining order is to protect, or require proof of actual fear of harassment on their part. Rather, it requires the\u00a0court on the evidence to consider the restraining\u00a0order necessary for their protection. 23 The\u00a0relevant question is thus, simply, whether the\u00a0evidence establishes a\u00a0risk of future harassment, making it necessary to impose a\u00a0restraining order. That is the\u00a0question the\u00a0judge addressed, and in doing so he made, in our judgment, no error of principle. 24 For completeness, we note that in the\u00a0present case the\u00a0evidence of the complainant, her sister and her brother-in-law in any event made clear that the\u00a0appellant's conduct had in fact led them to fear harassment. The\u00a0complainant, for example, said in her oral evidence that she felt scared to go anywhere in case she bumped into the appellant, whom she regarded as unpredictable, and that she had fled from him because he was violent towards her. Her evidence also included the\u00a0points that she had concerns about the appellant knowing where she was living, and, of course, that she had ultimately ended up going to a\u00a0women's refuge. Similarly, the\u00a0oral evidence given by the complainant's sister made clear her own concerns about the appellant's aggression, that being reflected also in her and her husband's written statements, albeit those were not adduced at trial. 25 As to the\u00a0third ground, s.5A(2A) of the Act provides that in proceedings under that section, both the\u00a0prosecution and the defence may use as further evidence any evidence that would be admissible in pursuit of an injunction under s.3, i.e. an\u00a0injunction to prevent a\u00a0defendant from pursuing any conduct that amounts to harassment. The\u00a0course of events at trial in the\u00a0present case, which we outlined earlier, indicates that the defence had the\u00a0opportunity to take instructions and to lead evidence from the\u00a0appellant, but did not apply to adduce any such evidence. As the\u00a0Crown points out, the\u00a0judge nonetheless had the\u00a0benefit of knowing the\u00a0appellant's position from his careful cross-examination of the three witnesses who gave evidence, his three full comment police interviews and a\u00a0full defence statement, albeit those matters were not evidence as such. In all the circumstances, we do not consider that the\u00a0judge erred in any way by making a\u00a0restraining order without having oral evidence from the appellant. 26 Finally, as to the\u00a0length of the restraining order, on the evidence before the judge we feel unable say that the five-year duration was manifestly excessive or involved any error of principle. The\u00a0question of child contact will no doubt be resolved in the\u00a0Family Court proceedings; and the\u00a0appellant will have the\u00a0opportunity to apply to vary or discharge the\u00a0restraining order should events make that appropriate. 27 For these reasons, we do not consider any of the grounds advanced to have merit, and therefore we will dismiss the\u00a0appeal. __________<\/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 HENSHAW: 1 This is an appeal from the imposition of a restraining order following acquittal pursuant to s.5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 2 The appellant, who is 38 years old, was acquitted on 14 January 2022 in the Crown Court at St Albans of one count of stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm…<\/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":[7633,8239,7622,7707,8240],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-658866","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-complainant","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-order","kji_keyword-restraining","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya - 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-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MR JUSTICE HENSHAW: 1 This is an appeal from the imposition of a restraining order following acquittal pursuant to s.5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 2 The appellant, who is 38 years old, was acquitted on 14 January 2022 in the Crown Court at St Albans of one count of stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/\" \/>\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-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T10:22:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\\\/#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 Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya\"}]},{\"@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 Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya - 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-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya","og_description":"MR JUSTICE HENSHAW: 1 This is an appeal from the imposition of a restraining order following acquittal pursuant to s.5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 2 The appellant, who is 38 years old, was acquitted on 14 January 2022 in the Crown Court at St Albans of one count of stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/","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-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/","name":"R v Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T10:22:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-babajide-oriyomi-oshosanya\/#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 Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya"}]},{"@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\/658866","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=658866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=658866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=658866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=658866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=658866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=658866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=658866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=658866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}