{"id":666435,"date":"2026-04-24T01:25:26","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T23:25:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\/"},"modified":"2026-04-24T01:25:26","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T23:25:26","slug":"regina-v-liam-kingswell","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\/","title":{"rendered":"REGINA v LIAM KINGSWELL"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS: 1 On 29\u00a0September\u00a02021 Liam\u00a0Kingswell appeared before the\u00a0Portsmouth Magistrates' Court charged with offences of criminal damage, battery and controlling and coercive behaviour in an\u00a0intimate relationship. He pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage, but not guilty to the\u00a0other charges. The\u00a0magistrates retained jurisdiction for trial. They gave directions for trial and a\u00a0trial date of 14\u00a0February\u00a02022 was set. 2 On 10\u00a0February\u00a02020 those instructed by Kingswell contacted the\u00a0prosecution. They indicated that he was prepared to plead guilty to controlling and coercive behaviour on what was termed a\u00a0full-facts basis. The\u00a0prosecution accepted this proposed plea, which was tendered on the day the case was listed for trial. Kingswell was committed for sentence to the\u00a0Crown Court sitting in Portsmouth. 3 On 18\u00a0March\u00a02022 Kingswell was sentenced in respect of the\u00a0offence of controlling and coercive behaviour to 12\u00a0months' imprisonment suspended for 24\u00a0months. Two requirements were attached to that sentence: a rehabilitation activity requirement for 25 days; a requirement to attend the\u00a0Building Better Relationships programme. No separate penalty was imposed in\u00a0respect of the offence of criminal damage. 4 Her Majesty's Solicitor General now seeks leave pursuant to s.36 of the\u00a0Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the\u00a0sentence to this court as unduly lenient. The\u00a0Facts 5 From the\u00a0end of\u00a0July\u00a02020 to 16\u00a0June\u00a02021 Kingswell was in a\u00a0relationship with a\u00a0young woman named Ellesse\u00a0Wiley. They lived together in Fareham in Hampshire. Almost from the beginning of the\u00a0relationship Kingswell behaved abusively, aggressively and, on occasion, violently towards her. Specific incidents recalled by Ms Wiley were as follows: \u2022 In\u00a0August\u00a02020 when Kingswell believed Wiley wished to end the relationship he made threats to commit suicide. \u2022 In September 2020 he was abusive to her in a public house when they were together. Later on the\u00a0same day, he smashed her mobile telephone. \u2022 The\u00a0same month, after Wiley had lent him her replacement mobile telephone, Kingswell smashed that telephone also. \u2022 From\u00a0October\u00a02020 Kingswell had a\u00a0drug habit. He demanded money from Wiley to buy drugs. She lent him between \u00a3600 and \u00a3700 in October and November 2020, which was never repaid. \u2022 In late\u00a0November\u00a02020 Wiley drove Kingswell to an\u00a0appointment he had made with a\u00a0drug dealer. The\u00a0dealer failed to turn up. Kingswell, who was drunk, became angry. He\u00a0punched Wiley hard on the nose, causing her nose to bleed and cutting her lip. This happened as she was driving her car. \u2022 On Boxing\u00a0Day 2020 Kingswell forced Wiley to leave the\u00a0home they shared. She had nowhere to go so she sat outside the\u00a0address. Kingswell eventually let her back in on condition she gave him more money for drugs. Inside the\u00a0house, he pushed her onto a\u00a0bed and\u00a0then pulled her off the\u00a0bed. He dragged her around the room by her ankle. Once free, Wiley\u00a0tried to call the\u00a0police, but Kingswell grabbed her telephone from her. Later, the\u00a0police were able to speak to Wiley. Initially, she made a\u00a0complaint, but did not pursue it when she was told Kingswell would be arrested. \u2022 In\u00a0January\u00a02021 Wiley took out a\u00a0loan in the\u00a0sum of \u00a3300 at an\u00a0exorbitant rate of interest when she was pressured by Kingswell to give him money to buy drugs. \u2022 In\u00a0February\u00a02021 Kingswell wanted Wiley to sell photographs of herself naked. She refused. He threw her mobile telephone at her, causing a\u00a0cut to her head. Wiley's mother reported this incident to the\u00a0police. Wiley declined to pursue the\u00a0matter. \u2022 In\u00a0March\u00a02021 Wiley was delivering food in her car. This was to make money to give to Kingswell. He was in the\u00a0car with her. He became angry and threw food at Wiley. He then threw a\u00a0Bluetooth speaker at the\u00a0windscreen of the\u00a0car, which caused \u00a3150 worth of damage. \u2022 In April 2021 Wiley believed that Kingswell was being unfaithful to her. When she challenged him on this, he struck her with force to the\u00a0right side of her face causing bruising. \u2022 In\u00a0May\u00a02021 in the\u00a0course of an\u00a0argument at the house they shared, Wiley threw a\u00a0pair of shoes at Kingswell. They did not strike him, but he became angry. He took her mobile telephone and smashed it. He grabbed her by the throat and strangled her with both hands. She believed that she was going to die. He stopped only when Wiley stopped struggling. He then kicked her with his bare foot to the side of her head. She suffered bruising. \u2022 On 16\u00a0June\u00a02021 Kingswell withdrew \u00a390 from Wiley's bank account when she had given him permission only to withdraw \u00a310. That led to an\u00a0argument. Kingswell threw a\u00a0bracelet on the floor damaging it. He threw her mobile telephone and her laptop computer out of the\u00a0window. He then went out of the\u00a0house and jumped on the computer. The\u00a0items were damaged irreparably. 6 It was the\u00a0incident in\u00a0June\u00a02021 which led to the\u00a0police being involved again. A\u00a0member of the public had seen the\u00a0events outside the\u00a0house. Wiley went on to make a\u00a0statement dealing with all of the matters we have outlined. She explained that Kingswell owed her approximately \u00a33,450\u00a0from money he had borrowed and never repaid. 7 Kingswell was arrested on 16\u00a0June\u00a02021. He admitted causing criminal damage. He said he had thrown items out of the\u00a0window because he wanted Wiley out of the\u00a0house and she would not leave. In relation to all other matters he made no comment. The matters available to the\u00a0judge 8 Wiley's statement made in\u00a0June\u00a02021 concluded with this passage: "I\u00a0don't feel as though I\u00a0can trust anyone at the moment. I\u00a0feel used and that nobody will respect me. I\u00a0don't recognise myself when I\u00a0look in the\u00a0mirror. I\u00a0feel he has affected my future. I\u00a0have a\u00a0poor credit score and believe it will be difficult to get finance. My relationship with my family is extremely strained. My job is in danger due to feigning illnesses and staying away when\u00a0my injuries were so bad. My mental health is low. I\u00a0have no energy, I\u00a0am anxious and depressed due to the\u00a0whole experience. I\u00a0have been left disfigured by a\u00a0scar and this is a\u00a0constant reminder of this man and what he has done to me." 9 She made a\u00a0further victim personal statement in\u00a0March\u00a02022 in which she said: "I\u00a0don't like looking at myself in the\u00a0mirror and seeing the\u00a0scar does remind me of his behaviour and how he controlled me even now. Due to the finance I\u00a0took out for Liam I\u00a0now have a\u00a0number of marks on my credit history which means I\u00a0can't get my own credit and have to ask for guarantors and help from my family for things even as simple as a mobile phone contract. Since being able to leave Liam I\u00a0feel like I\u00a0have turned a\u00a0corner, he is still contacting me, but I have been able to open to up to work colleagues and friends who have helped me understand and start to move on. I\u00a0do still feel affected by Liam and his behaviour, but I\u00a0no longer feel trapped by him due to their help." 10 The\u00a0detailed pre-sentence report set out the\u00a0factors affecting Kingswell's offending, in particular substance abuse. When assessing his thinking and behaviour, the\u00a0author of the report said this: "As evidenced throughout this report, the\u00a0author has highlighted concerns in relation to Mr\u00a0Kingswell's thinking and behaviours, he\u00a0can be calculated and controlling, he\u00a0can be emotionally and financially abusive and will use violence as a\u00a0weapon to coerce and to cause fear. There is an\u00a0inability to think consequentially, and there appear to be values and beliefs that support and condone domestic abuse when in intimate relationships. The\u00a0defendant also has poor emotional management, and he uses substance as a\u00a0poor attempt to self-medicate his mental health difficulties. That said, Mr Kingswell has expressed a willingness to work with probation practitioners, whether this is in custody, or with the community teams". 11 The\u00a0risk of harm was described as follows: "The nature of the risk to known adults and female members of the public relates to the\u00a0defendant making contact on dating websites then forming an intimate relationship\u2026..there is a\u00a0high likelihood of long term emotional and psychological harm caused by domestic abuse, obsessive and fixated thinking contributing to controlling and coercive behaviours with the addition to financial abuse and exploitation, by repeated physical violence, and threats to harm himself. There is also the\u00a0propensity for the defendant to damage property to resolve the\u00a0situation." 12 The\u00a0author of the report offered the\u00a0option of the requirements, which were in the\u00a0event attached to the\u00a0suspended sentence, "in the\u00a0unlikely event that an\u00a0immediate custodial sentence can be avoided." 13 Kingswell (who was born in\u00a0January\u00a01997 and is now aged 25) was convicted in\u00a0December\u00a02017 of battery and criminal damage. He was conditionally discharged for six\u00a0months. In\u00a0May\u00a02018 he was convicted of pursuing a\u00a0course of harassment from\u00a0March\u00a02018 onwards. This put him in breach of the conditional discharge. For the harassment offence and for the offences for which he was conditionally discharged he was made the subject of a\u00a0community order. He failed to comply with that order. In\u00a0January\u00a02020 it was discharged and Kingswell was conditionally discharged for 12\u00a0months. The\u00a0offences in\u00a0December\u00a02017 and\u00a0May\u00a02018 related to his then partner i.e. a young woman other than Ms Wiley. 14 We should say that there is possibly some doubt about the date of the second conditional discharge. We do not take into account that there may have been a\u00a0breach of that order in considering the\u00a0application of the Solicitor General. The\u00a0Sentence 15 The judge set out in some detail the\u00a0incidents which the\u00a0charge of controlling and coercive behaviour represented. He summarised the\u00a0position thus: "This litany of damage to property and assaults upon her must have made it a\u00a0year of hell as far as she was concerned." 16 The\u00a0judge noted Kingswell's previous convictions, which involved another partner. He observed that the response to the previous community order had been poor. In relation to mitigation, the\u00a0judge said that Kingswell had demonstrated remorse, this flowing from what Kingswell had said to his counsel on the day of sentence. The\u00a0judge said that the plea of guilty was "even more pleasing". He said that he was prepared to accept that Kingswell had made efforts to put his life on a\u00a0better course. 17 The\u00a0sole passage in the\u00a0sentencing remarks relating to the\u00a0Sentencing Council guideline in relation to the\u00a0offence of controlling and coercive behaviour was as follows: "I\u00a0have to consider the\u00a0guidelines. I\u00a0have no doubt this steps straight into Category\u00a01A with a\u00a0starting point of two and a half years. Mr\u00a0Reilly, to whom I\u00a0hope you will express your profound thanks at the conclusion of this hearing because he has done a\u00a0great deal on your behalf, points out that the range is one to four years, and undoubtedly these are offences which can cover a\u00a0multitude of differing offences. Particularly because of your guilty plea I\u00a0have come to the\u00a0conclusion that there must be a\u00a0sentence of imprisonment but it can be suspended in your case." 18 The\u00a0judge then went on to impose the\u00a0sentence to which we have already referred. In this sentencing remarks he said nothing about the\u00a0level of discount for the plea of guilty. However, in the\u00a0course of submissions from counsel, he had indicated that a\u00a0reduction of 25 per\u00a0cent would be appropriate. Submissions 19 The\u00a0Solicitor General argues that the judge was correct in his categorisation of the offence by reference to the\u00a0relevant Sentencing Council guideline. That gave a\u00a0starting point of two and a\u00a0half years. There were multiple harm and culpability factors. There were also aggravating factors, in particular the\u00a0previous convictions demonstrating a\u00a0history of violence in a domestic context and the\u00a0fact that Wiley was left in debt. Thus, there should have been a\u00a0significant uplift from the starting point. The\u00a0mitigating factors were of limited effect. Thus, the\u00a0sentence before any discount for plea should have been substantially greater than that determined by the judge. The\u00a0discount which the\u00a0judge must have applied was excessive, given the\u00a0point at which the\u00a0plea was indicated. 20 It is argued that for those reasons the\u00a0appropriate sentence exceeded that which could have been suspended. In any event, it was not appropriate to suspend any sentence given Kingswell's poor response to court orders in the\u00a0past and the fact that appropriate punishment could only be met by an immediate sentence. 21 The\u00a0submission on behalf of Kingswell before the\u00a0judge was that, whilst the\u00a0offence of controlling and coercive behaviour clearly fell into Category\u00a01A in the\u00a0guideline, the\u00a0sentencing range within that category is wide, namely one to four years. It was argued that the judge could properly conclude that, using his experience, the\u00a0offence fell at the lower end of the category. The\u00a0resulting sentence would be one which could be suspended. The\u00a0prospect of rehabilitation meant that suspending the\u00a0sentence would be an\u00a0appropriate course. It is argued today that these prospects have been confirmed in an\u00a0updated report dated 21\u00a0April\u00a02021. The\u00a0arguments in the\u00a0court below were repeated before us to support the\u00a0proposition that the sentence imposed was not unduly lenient. It was accepted that the\u00a0sentence was "at the generous end of the spectrum". Nonetheless, it was submitted that any sentence should still be of such a\u00a0length to allow it to be suspended. Discussion 22 In order to decide whether the\u00a0sentence imposed by the\u00a0judge was unduly lenient, we have to ask whether the sentences imposed by him fell outside the reasonable range of sentences open to him. We have no doubt that it did and that the\u00a0sentence imposed was unduly lenient. 23 First, the offending fell squarely into 1A of the relevant Sentencing Council guideline, the\u00a0starting point identified therein being two years and six months' custody. There were multiple harm and culpability features. In relation to culpability, Kingswell's action was persistent over a\u00a0prolonged period and he adopted multiple methods of controlling and coercive behaviour. As to harm, Wiley was in fear of violence on many occasions and she suffered very serious distress which had a\u00a0substantial adverse effect on her. As the\u00a0judge observed, for her it was "a\u00a0year of hell". Rather than putting the\u00a0offending towards the\u00a0lower end of the category range, the\u00a0multiplicity of features served to move the starting point upwards. 24 Second, the\u00a0aggravating effect of Kingswell's previous convictions representing a\u00a0history of violence in a\u00a0domestic context and the extent to which Wiley was left in debt was very substantial. It far outweighed the\u00a0effect of any mitigating factors. The\u00a0remorse upon which reliance was placed was not reflected in the\u00a0detailed pre-sentence report. The\u00a0late plea did not sit easily with the suggested remorse. Further, the\u00a0pre-sentence report gave limited support to the\u00a0suggestion that there were real prospects of rehabilitation. Balancing the\u00a0aggravating and mitigating factors should have led to a\u00a0further increase from the starting point for a\u00a0Category\u00a01A offence. 25 Third, the\u00a0plea of guilty was indicated four days before trial. Until that point, Wiley was anticipating having to give evidence. Had the\u00a0plea of guilty been indicated on the day of trial, the\u00a0maximum reduction in sentence would have been ten per\u00a0cent. That is clearly stated in the\u00a0Sentencing Council guideline in relation to reduction in sentence for a\u00a0guilty plea, a\u00a0guideline to which the\u00a0judge did not refer at any point in his sentencing remarks. Some greater reduction than 10 per\u00a0cent was justified since Wiley did not need to attend court assuming she was to give evidence. Rather, she was notified of the position in advance. However, there was no reasonable basis upon which to reduce the\u00a0sentence by 25 per\u00a0cent (assuming that is what the judge did) given the\u00a0point at which the\u00a0plea was indicated. The\u00a0reduction could not have been more than 15 per\u00a0cent. 26 This was a\u00a0serious case of prolonged domestic abuse. The\u00a0seriousness of such offending is explained in the\u00a0Sentencing Council Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse. We refer in particular to para.7 and to 9 of that guideline, a\u00a0guideline which sadly is regularly ignored by sentencing judges. The\u00a0sentence imposed in this case wholly failed to represent the\u00a0principles set out in those paragraphs. 27 With all due respect to the\u00a0sentencing judge, he gave no explanation of why Kingswell's sentence was towards the\u00a0lower end of the relevant category range, other than saying that offending of this kind covers "a\u00a0multitude of differing offences". That is true. But to justify reducing the starting point as he did, it was incumbent on the\u00a0judge to explain in clear terms how he had done so. In our view, had the\u00a0judge conducted a\u00a0proper analysis of the\u00a0offending by reference to the\u00a0guideline and to the\u00a0aggravating and mitigating factors, he could not possibly have reached the\u00a0conclusion he did. Conclusion 28 In our judgment the\u00a0sentence before any reduction for plea should have been three\u00a0years and three months' custody. Applying a\u00a0reduction of 15 per\u00a0cent for the plea of guilty gives a\u00a0sentence to serve of 33\u00a0months' imprisonment. 29 We give leave to refer the\u00a0sentence imposed by the\u00a0judge. We quash the\u00a0sentence of 12\u00a0months' imprisonment suspended for two\u00a0years. We substitute an\u00a0immediate sentence of 33\u00a0months' imprisonment, of which Kingswell will serve half before he is entitled to automatic release on licence. ______________<\/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 WILLIAM DAVIS: 1 On 29 September 2021 Liam Kingswell appeared before the Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court charged with offences of criminal damage, battery and controlling and coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship. He pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage, but not guilty to the other charges. The magistrates retained jurisdiction for trial. They gave directions for trial and a…<\/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":[7621,34786,8348,8399,15830],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-666435","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-judge","kji_keyword-kingswell","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-sentencing","kji_keyword-wiley","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nREGINA v LIAM KINGSWELL - 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-liam-kingswell\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"REGINA v LIAM KINGSWELL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS: 1 On 29 September 2021 Liam Kingswell appeared before the Portsmouth Magistrates' Court charged with offences of criminal damage, battery and controlling and coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship. He pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage, but not guilty to the other charges. The magistrates retained jurisdiction for trial. They gave directions for trial and a...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\/\" \/>\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-liam-kingswell\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\\\/\",\"name\":\"REGINA v LIAM KINGSWELL - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T23:25:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\\\/#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 LIAM KINGSWELL\"}]},{\"@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 LIAM KINGSWELL - 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-liam-kingswell\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"REGINA v LIAM KINGSWELL","og_description":"LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS: 1 On 29 September 2021 Liam Kingswell appeared before the Portsmouth Magistrates' Court charged with offences of criminal damage, battery and controlling and coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship. He pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage, but not guilty to the other charges. The magistrates retained jurisdiction for trial. They gave directions for trial and a...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\/","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-liam-kingswell\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\/","name":"REGINA v LIAM KINGSWELL - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T23:25:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-liam-kingswell\/#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 LIAM KINGSWELL"}]},{"@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\/666435","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=666435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=666435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=666435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=666435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=666435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=666435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=666435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=666435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}