{"id":661741,"date":"2026-04-23T18:01:54","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T16:01:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T18:01:54","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T16:01:54","slug":"regina-v-callum-andrews","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/","title":{"rendered":"Regina v Callum Andrews"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: 1 On 22\u00a0December\u00a02021, following a\u00a0trial before his Honour Judge Bishop (then the Recorder of\u00a0Luton), the appellant was convicted of\u00a0conspiracy to\u00a0cause grievous bodily harm with intent and two counts of\u00a0wounding with intent. These were Counts 1, 3 and 5 on the indictment. He\u00a0was acquitted of\u00a0the remaining counts on the indictment. On 24\u00a0March\u00a02022 he\u00a0was sentenced by\u00a0the trial judge to\u00a0an\u00a0extended determinate sentence of\u00a025\u00a0years, comprising a\u00a0custodial term of\u00a020\u00a0years with a five-year extension period, pursuant to\u00a0section\u00a0279 of\u00a0the Sentencing Act 2020, the same sentence to run concurrently on each count. He\u00a0was also sentenced for drug offences which had been committed for sentence from Bedfordshire Magistrates' Court, for which he received a\u00a0total term of 40 months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with\u00a0the extended determinate sentence. 2 There were two separate incidents. The first incident took place in Luton on 24\u00a0August\u00a02020, when a\u00a0man called Eamon Plater was stabbed using a\u00a0Rambo knife. It\u00a0was the prosecution's case that those responsible were the appellant and two other men, one of\u00a0whom was also on trial as\u00a0a\u00a0co-accused, the other of whom was unknown. This gave rise to\u00a0Count\u00a03, which was wounding with intent, and was the culmination of\u00a0an agreement between the defendants, which was Count\u00a01, a\u00a0conspiracy to\u00a0cause grievous bodily harm with intent. The second incident took place on 6\u00a0October\u00a02020 at a\u00a0property in Dover, Kent in which the appellant stabbed a\u00a0man called Imara Gillings. This was Count\u00a05\u00a0of wounding with intent. 3 The appellant appeals against his conviction on all counts with the leave of\u00a0the single judge. The appeal raises a single issue of whether the trial judge was correct to\u00a0exclude certain bad character evidence in relation to the victim in Count 5, Mr\u00a0Gillings. It is said that the error on this count infects the safety of conviction on the other counts too. 4 It is necessary to set out the facts in relation to Count 5 in a little more detail. On 5\u00a0October\u00a02020 the appellant travelled to\u00a0Dover. He arrived at Dover station at around 10.45 p.m. He made his way to\u00a0a\u00a0Saint Alban\u2019s guest house (which we will refer to as "the guest house"), which he had booked using a\u00a0false name and\u00a0address. He left shortly afterwards and travelled to\u00a0a property at 90\u00a0Balfour Road, Dover (which we shall term "the property"). Two drug users, Malcolm Stanton and Jayne Atkin, had been living at\u00a0the property for about five weeks. The appellant remained there for around an\u00a0hour and a\u00a0half that evening before he\u00a0returned to\u00a0the guest house. At around 3.00\u00a0a.m. the next morning, 6\u00a0October 2020, Imara Gillings, who was another drug dealer who had been staying at\u00a0the property, arrived at\u00a0the property and went upstairs to\u00a0sleep. This property was essentially a\u00a0"cuckooed" house, meaning that it had been taken over for use as a\u00a0base for a\u00a0county lines drug dealing operation. The appellant left the guest house where he was staying at around 9.00 a.m. that morning and he took a\u00a0taxi to\u00a0the property. He arrived at\u00a0the property just after 9.15\u00a0a.m. and directed Stanton to\u00a0run drugs for him. Stanton left the property. Atkin, who was also present at\u00a0the property, went upstairs to\u00a0tell Gillings that the appellant was at\u00a0the address and that he, Gillings, should leave. As\u00a0Gillings was descending the stairs, Atkin said he\u00a0was spotted by\u00a0the appellant who said, "Oh, you've made an\u00a0appearance then." The two men were not strangers to\u00a0one another because they had been involved in an incident in Balfour Road shortly beforehand when Gillings had chased the appellant. 5 Atkin said the appellant pulled out a Rambo-style knife from his waistband, ran over to\u00a0Gillings and stabbed him three times to\u00a0the chest and back. Atkin said that Gillings had nothing in his hands, he was not carrying a knife. 6 Gillings managed to\u00a0leave the property. He\u00a0disposed of\u00a0a\u00a0rucksack and some drugs over a church yard wall. After doing so, he collapsed in the street. He was given first-aid by members of the public, police and paramedics. When he\u00a0was asked who was responsible, he\u00a0said he\u00a0did not know. He\u00a0was transferred by\u00a0helicopter to\u00a0hospital where he\u00a0underwent several operations. He\u00a0remained in an induced coma for five days. 7 In evidence Dr\u00a0Rouse, who was the prosecution's expert pathologist, confirmed that Gillings had two serious stab wounds. He described the wounds to\u00a0Gillings' hands as\u00a0"classic defensive injuries". The full list of injuries was that he had a stab wound over the left clavicle, which was five centimetres in length, two wounds to\u00a0the left axilla, both five centimetres in surface length, anterior shoulder and inferior left axilla. These were communicating wounds, namely through and through wounds, with a\u00a0tear to\u00a0the deltoid muscle. He had a wound to the left lumbar area, described as three centimetres in surface length and superficial, and he\u00a0had multiple, bilateral wounds to\u00a0both hands, including a deep cut to the palmar crease of\u00a0the right hand, cutting all flexor tendons, a\u00a0cut to the front right wrist, and a\u00a0wound to\u00a0the left index and middle finger. 8 The appellant left the property and returned to\u00a0the guesthouse, getting there at around 9.49\u00a0a.m. He was wearing a\u00a0jacket with a fur hood and black trousers. At 10.52\u00a0a.m. he left the guest house. He was now wearing blue jeans and the jacket no longer had the fur hood. At 11.03 a.m. on 6 October a\u00a0taxi was booked with Richard's Dover Taxis from the Malvern Hotel in Dover to Ashford. The person calling to make the booking used a\u00a0phone number 3714 and said they were booking on\u00a0behalf of\u00a0their brother who had run out of\u00a0credit. That number 3714 belonged to\u00a0an associate of\u00a0the appellant's whom the prosecution said the appellant had contacted. That person said the brother's name was Jay. The appellant was known to Stanton and Atkin as\u00a0Jay. The taxi company called him back. The person who answered confirmed that they were at\u00a0the Malvern Hotel. The taxi went to pick them up but no-one was there. Another taxi was booked on the same date at about 11.00\u00a0a.m. with County Cars to pick up from Malvern Road, Dover, near the chemist, also in the name of\u00a0Jay. The pick-up location was then changed to outside the Malvern Public House on Clarendon Road. The customer, said by\u00a0the prosecution to\u00a0be the appellant, was dropped off outside Kent House in Ashford, paying cash. The prosecution said that the appellant caught a train and was collected at Ebbsfleet Station by\u00a0two men who drove him back to\u00a0Enfield. 9 On 12\u00a0October\u00a02020 the appellant was arrested in the car park of\u00a0a\u00a0Travelodge in Waltham Cross. His clothes were seized and forensically examined. Blood spots were found on his trainers that were a DNA match for Imara\u00a0Gillings. It was not possible to\u00a0determine the mechanism by\u00a0which the blood was deposited. The appellant's coat was the same one he could be seen wearing in CCTV\u00a0from 6\u00a0October\u00a02020. It too was checked for blood inside and also in the pockets but none was found. There were no tears or cuts on the coat. 10 The appellant answered no comment to\u00a0all questions put to\u00a0him in interview. He submitted a defence case statement to\u00a0the court dealing with Count\u00a05. Paragraph 5 of\u00a0that statement asserted that: \u201cb. [Gillings] was in possession of a knife and used this in the attack. [The appellant] was injured by the knife used by [Gillings]. c. Initially [the appellant] was grappling with [Gillings] but was unable to stop [Gillings] and so used a knife he had in his possession to make [Gillings] cease the attack.\u201d Thus, on the appellant's case, there were two knives, one in Gillings\u2019 hand which Gillings was using, and one used by the appellant in self-defence. 11 It was the prosecution's case that the appellant was the aggressor and that he was not acting in lawful self-defence. The prosecution said there was only one knife, the Rambo knife which was in the possession of and used by\u00a0the appellant to\u00a0inflict the injuries. 12 At trial, the appellant made an\u00a0application pursuant to\u00a0section\u00a0100(1)(a) and (b) of\u00a0the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to\u00a0adduce the bad character of\u00a0Gillings. The application was originally in wider form but this appeal concerns only the admissibility of the following convictions: a. Aggravated burglary on 21\u00a0January\u00a02017. Gillings (then aged 15 years) and another had forced their way into the home of\u00a0a\u00a015-year-old boy. Gillings was in possession of\u00a0machete with which he\u00a0threatened the victim. He searched the house and stole a PlayStation 4. The victim's father came home. Gillings threatened him with the weapon and stole property from his pockets. Gillings struck the boy with the butt of\u00a0the weapon. b. Possession of a knife on 24 May 2017. Gillings was said to\u00a0be\u00a0one of\u00a0a\u00a0group of\u00a0males hanging around an\u00a0abandoned vehicle. Police found a\u00a0discarded kitchen knife which had his DNA on it. c. Third, possession of\u00a0a\u00a0knife on 10 June 2017. Gillings was riding his bike and was stopped by\u00a0police and searched. He\u00a0had a\u00a0large black-handled kitchen knife at his thigh. 13 The appellant argued that these convictions demonstrated that Gillings was a\u00a0man of\u00a0violence, and that he was willing to\u00a0use violence, in particular to use knives, to further his business objectives to "crush other competitors". By the time the judge came to\u00a0rule on the application part way through the prosecution case, it seems that the appellant was principally relying on section\u00a0100(1)(b), namely that these convictions had substantial probative value in relation to an issue in the case, which was whether the appellant acted in self-defence. To a lesser extent the defence relied on section\u00a0100(1)(a) to say that this was important explanatory evidence. 14 The prosecution opposed the application. The prosecution argued that the convictions did not have substantial probative value because Gillings had not been convicted of\u00a0stabbing anyone and there was no history of\u00a0violence between the appellant and Gillings such as to\u00a0make these convictions arguably relevant. 15 The judge rejected the defence application. He reminded himself of\u00a0the legislation, specifically referring to\u00a0section 100(1) and (3). In his ruling given on 22 November he\u00a0concluded: "\u2026 Well, the first convictions are in respect of a possession of a knife, two of those, when he was 15, possession only; then an aggravated burglary, when he was 15, when he broke into another boy\u2019s flat and stole an item and he had with him a machete and he attacked the father when challenged; attacked him not with the blade but with the \u2013 the butt of the handle, and the first question then is whether any of those previous convictions satisfy the test in [section 100(1)(b)]. Well, I\u2019m quite satisfied that they do not. I\u2019ve got to be satisfied that those convictions would have substantial probative value and also that they are of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, going to the issue of whether Amara Gillings was the aggressor and Callum Andrews was acting in self-defence, so I\u2019m satisfied possession of a knife is what it says, possession \u2013 possession of the knife — and an aggravated burglary is very different \u2013 quite different to the facts of the case that I\u2019m dealing with in this trial, and in subsection 3 of section 100, I must have regard to the nature and the number of the events to which the evidence relates and I think the nature of the aggravated burglary is such that it does not establish the necessary link that is required under section 100(1)(b).\u201d 16 The appellant, represented by Mr\u00a0King, submits that the judge erred in his refusal to\u00a0admit the previous convictions. In oral submissions before us today Mr\u00a0King has focused, in particular, on the conviction for aggravated burglary. In addition, given that Gillings did not give evidence, he submits that the jury would have been assisted by\u00a0knowledge of\u00a0these previous convictions when they came to\u00a0assess the truth or otherwise of\u00a0the prosecution case. 17 The prosecution resist this appeal. Mr Dennis, who appeared for the prosecution at trial and represents the Crown on this appeal, argues that the judge correctly applied the statutory provisions. But in any event, the prosecution submit that that by the time the judge came to\u00a0sum up the case, Jayne Atkin, who was present when these events occurred and who did give evidence at trial, had accepted in her evidence that she had earlier seen Gillings in possession of\u00a0a\u00a0knife, and that statement had not been challenged by\u00a0the prosecution. So, say the prosecution, in light of that evidence, the two convictions for possession of\u00a0a\u00a0knife, at least, ceased to have any relevance. Only the conviction for aggravated burglary even arguably remained live. In relation to that, the prosecution submit the judge was correct to conclude that offence had taken place too long before this incident, nearly four years earlier, at a time when Gillings was only 15\u00a0years old, and anyway was on very different facts because Gillings had not threatened to\u00a0stab anyone with a\u00a0knife in the course of\u00a0that incident. In the alternative, the prosecution submit that the convictions are safe, bearing in mind the remaining evidence on each count against the appellant. 18 We are grateful to\u00a0all counsel and their legal teams for their focussed submissions on this appeal. 19 The legislative provisions are familiar, section\u00a0100(1) and 100(3) CJA 2003. In determining this application the judge was at pains to\u00a0examine the nature and number of\u00a0the three previous convictions when those events occurred and to determine the extent of\u00a0any similarity or dissimilarity. We can see some force in the appellant's criticisms of the judge's exclusion of\u00a0the three previous convictions at the time the ruling was given. But we do not reach any final conclusion on whether the judge was right to\u00a0exclude those convictions, preferring instead to move to what we consider to be the central point in this appeal, which is whether the conviction was safe. We do this in large part because the judge's ruling was given at\u00a0the mid-point of\u00a0the prosecution case, before Miss Atkin had given evidence, and matters moved on in light of her evidence. It\u00a0is important to\u00a0consider the case as\u00a0it stood at the end of the evidence and in the way in which it\u00a0was summed up to\u00a0the jury. 20 By the time the evidence closed, the jury had heard evidence from Miss\u00a0Atkin that she had seen Gillings with a little silver knife that he\u00a0folded and put in his bag. This had occurred either late evening of 5\u00a0October\u00a02020 or in the early hours of\u00a06\u00a0October\u00a02020, when Gillings had come back to\u00a0the property. Her evidence on this point was not challenged. It\u00a0was a\u00a0point of\u00a0which the defence made a\u00a0great deal in closing submissions. We note that Miss\u00a0Atkin was talking about a\u00a0little silver knife, which is of course markedly different from the Rambo knife that she described as\u00a0having been in the appellant's possession and as having been the instrument with which the serious injuries were inflicted on Gillings. In light of\u00a0Atkin\u2019s evidence on this point, the two previous convictions for possession of a knife ceased to have any arguable relevance, because Gillings was known to have been in possession of\u00a0a\u00a0knife at around the time of these events. It is only the aggravated burglary which gives rise to any live issue. 21 We turn to\u00a0consider the strength of\u00a0the evidence of the prosecution case overall against the appellant. The prosecution's case was anchored by\u00a0the evidence of\u00a0Atkin, who was an\u00a0independent eye-witness. She had seen the appellant be the aggressor. She had seen only one knife being used in the altercation and that was the Rambo knife which she had seen the appellant take out of the waistband of\u00a0his trousers. She denied in terms that there was any second knife seen or that Gillings held a\u00a0knife as he\u00a0descended the stairs: this was put to her in terms in cross-examination and her response was clear. There was other evidence beyond Atkin\u2019s evidence to\u00a0support the conviction of the appellant on Count\u00a05. The injuries to\u00a0Gillings were described as\u00a0classic defence injuries by Dr\u00a0Rouse. They were consistent with him trying to\u00a0grab the Rambo knife carried by\u00a0the appellant, and Dr\u00a0Rouse's evidence supported Atkins' evidence that it was the appellant who was the aggressor. The appellant's behaviour following the incident further supported the prosecution case. He\u00a0left the scene. He\u00a0went back to\u00a0the guest house that he had booked and changed his clothes. He kept his cut left hand in his pocket following the incident. He called his friends who booked him a\u00a0taxi in the false name of\u00a0Jay. He lied to\u00a0the taxi driver who picked him up. The appellant stopped using his own mobile number when he arrived at Ebbsfleet Station, and there he was picked up by\u00a0his friends. He failed to\u00a0answer questions in interview and he declined to\u00a0give evidence. At no stage did he give any explanation as\u00a0to\u00a0what had happened during this incident, despite asserting that he\u00a0was acting in lawful self-defence at the time. In addition, there was evidence that he had used a Rambo-style knife against Plater, in the other counts which evidence was properly admissible when it came to count 5. 22 In light of these several strands of evidence against the appellant, we conclude that the prosecution case against the appellant on count 5 was very strong. We do not reach any conclusion on whether the aggravated burglary conviction, with or without the possession convictions, should have been admitted. But if these convictions had been admitted, we agree with Mr\u00a0Dennis' submission that they would have formed, in the end, only small fragments in the case that went to\u00a0the jury. The prosecution case would have remained very strong. 23 We are satisfied that the conviction on Count\u00a05 is safe and that the convictions on the other counts are also safe. This 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":"

LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: 1 On 22 December 2021, following a trial before his Honour Judge Bishop (then the Recorder of Luton), the appellant was convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and two counts of wounding with intent. These were Counts 1, 3 and 5 on the indictment. He was acquitted of the remaining counts on the…<\/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":[7633,7622,34082,10961,9013],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-661741","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-evidence","kji_keyword-gillings","kji_keyword-knife","kji_keyword-prosecution","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nRegina v Callum Andrews - 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\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Regina v Callum Andrews\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: 1 On 22 December 2021, following a trial before his Honour Judge Bishop (then the Recorder of Luton), the appellant was convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and two counts of wounding with intent. These were Counts 1, 3 and 5 on the indictment. He was acquitted of the remaining counts on the...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/\" \/>\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=\"15 \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\\\/regina-v-callum-andrews\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-callum-andrews\\\/\",\"name\":\"Regina v Callum Andrews - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T16:01:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-callum-andrews\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-callum-andrews\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-callum-andrews\\\/#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\":\"Regina v Callum Andrews\"}]},{\"@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":"Regina v Callum Andrews - 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\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Regina v Callum Andrews","og_description":"LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: 1 On 22 December 2021, following a trial before his Honour Judge Bishop (then the Recorder of Luton), the appellant was convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and two counts of wounding with intent. These were Counts 1, 3 and 5 on the indictment. He was acquitted of the remaining counts on the...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/","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":"15 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/","name":"Regina v Callum Andrews - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T16:01:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-callum-andrews\/#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":"Regina v Callum Andrews"}]},{"@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\/661741","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=661741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=661741"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=661741"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=661741"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=661741"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=661741"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=661741"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=661741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}