{"id":671553,"date":"2026-04-24T10:37:18","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T08:37:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\/"},"modified":"2026-04-24T10:37:18","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T08:37:18","slug":"regina-v-elijah-morgan","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\/","title":{"rendered":"REGINA v ELIJAH MORGAN"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: Background 1 On 12\u00a0March\u00a020201, in the\u00a0Central Criminal Court in front of HHJ Rafferty QC, the\u00a0applicant, who was then aged 20, was convicted unanimously of one count of murder (Count\u00a01) and one count of possession of a\u00a0bladed article (Count 2). 2 On 19\u00a0April\u00a02021 the\u00a0applicant was sentenced to custody for life with a\u00a0minimum term of 28\u00a0years, less the\u00a0408 days he had spent on remand. That was on Count\u00a01. He was sentenced to 30\u00a0months\u2019 detention in a\u00a0Young Offenders' Institution on Count\u00a02 to be served concurrently. His co-accused, Jedaiah\u00a0Param, was convicted of murder and possession of a\u00a0bladed article and was sentenced to custody for life with a\u00a0minimum term of 28\u00a0years. 3 The\u00a0applicant, Mr\u00a0Morgan, now applies for an\u00a0extension of time of six days in which to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by the\u00a0single judge. We are satisfied that a\u00a0reasonable excuse has been demonstrated for the late filling of this application to renew and we extend time for that purpose. 4 The\u00a0facts in brief are these. In the\u00a0early hours of Friday, 6\u00a0December\u00a02019, Crosslon Davis (the\u00a0deceased) and his friend Elhaj Diarrassouba, travelled to Deptford in London and met a\u00a0group of men. Jedaiah\u00a0Param was part of the group. 5 At approximately 2.41am, Mr\u00a0Diarrassouba booked a\u00a0taxi for Param and another man. Param and the other man got into the\u00a0taxi. As the\u00a0taxi started to drive away, the\u00a0deceased approached the taxi, opened the door and tried to attack the other male passenger with a mallet. The taxi driver attempted to drive away. He drove a\u00a0short distance before Param and the other man got out and ran in the\u00a0direction of the deceased. Moments later, four men surrounded the\u00a0deceased and stabbed him to death before fleeing the\u00a0scene. 6 The\u00a0prosecution case was that the\u00a0applicant was the\u00a0man in the\u00a0taxi with Param and that he and Param were two of the\u00a0four men who stabbed the\u00a0deceased to death. Part of the evidence relied on by the\u00a0prosecution was dash-cam footage from the taxi showing two men approaching the\u00a0vehicle. Param accepted that he was one of the men in the\u00a0footage, the\u00a0man on the left. The designated CCTV officer stated that the other man wore distinct trainers that were the\u00a0same as the\u00a0trainers owned by the\u00a0applicant. The\u00a0prosecution also adduced evidence from PC Barton, a\u00a0police officer who stated that he recognised the\u00a0applicant as the\u00a0man on the right in dash-cam footage. 7 The\u00a0defence case put forward by the\u00a0applicant was that he was not present at the scene and was not the\u00a0person shown on the dash-cam footage. He did not give evidence at trial. 8 The\u00a0issue for the jury was whether the\u00a0applicant was present at the scene and whether he was therefore one of the four men who murdered the\u00a0deceased. PC Barton's Evidence 9 The prosecution relied on evidence from a\u00a0PC Barton that he recognised the\u00a0applicant as the\u00a0second man in the\u00a0dash-cam footage. PC Barton stated that he had attended a\u00a0homicide team handover meeting on 9\u00a0December\u00a02019. Shortly before the\u00a0meeting, he had been informed that the\u00a0applicant had been identified as a\u00a0person of interest. He believed that the applicant's name sounded familiar, so he conducted a\u00a0search of the police database to confirm the\u00a0applicant's identity but did not at that stage view any photographs. 10 Following that search, he attended the\u00a0handover meeting. It was during the\u00a0course of this handover meeting that he saw the\u00a0dash-cam footage for the first time. His evidence was that he immediately recognised the\u00a0applicant, having had numerous dealings with him, including one incident in\u00a0April\u00a02016 where he had detained the\u00a0applicant. PC Barton then obtained a\u00a0copy of the dash-cam footage and, whilst alone, viewed it again and compared it to the applicant's custody photograph and, following this exercise, he became sure that it was indeed the\u00a0applicant in the\u00a0dash-cam footage. 11 In the\u00a0course of the trial, the\u00a0judge was asked to rule on the admissibility of PC Barton's identification evidence. Counsel for the defence, Mr\u00a0Sherrat QC, who appears before us today, submitted that PC Barton's evidence should be excluded under s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Counsel for the prosecution submitted that the evidence should not be excluded on that basis. 12 In a\u00a0detailed ruling dated 11\u00a0February\u00a02020, running to 47 paragraphs, the judge ruled in favour of the prosecution, and admitted the evidence. The\u00a0judge referred to Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2002) [2002] EWCA Crim 2373. She noted that\u00a0PC Barton was giving evidence that he recognised the\u00a0applicant and that it was for the jury to assess the\u00a0reliability of that evidence. She thought the footage, although short, was of sufficient quality to permit an\u00a0identification: she referred to characteristics of gender, skin colour, facial features, approximate height, build, age and gait, all of which characteristics were visible in the footage. Further, the footage was well lit by the lights of the taxi. She said that she would direct the\u00a0jury that they needed to exercise caution in relation to identification evidence. She noted that PC Barton said he recognised the applicant when he first saw the\u00a0dash-cam footage during the\u00a0course of a\u00a0police briefing on 9\u00a0December\u00a02019 and that he had met the\u00a0applicant on numerous occasions, referring to the\u00a0arrest in 2016 and then contact between 2014 and 2018 when PC Barton was the\u00a0gangs officer in Lewisham. The\u00a0judge noted that PC Barton could be cross-examined on the\u00a0extent of his previous acquaintance with the applicant and, indeed, on the process he adopted to research the\u00a0applicant and confirm the recognition of him. She recognised that there were issues about failure to comply with the PACE codes of conduct, but in her judgment those failings went to weight and not to admissibility. She referred to R v Yaryare [2020] EWCA Crim 1314, which supported her approach. For those reasons, she refused the\u00a0defence application to exclude PC Barton's evidence. 13 The\u00a0first ground of appeal before us is that the judge was wrong in refusing this application and that BC Barton's evidence should have been excluded under s.78. 14 At the close of the crown's case, a\u00a0submission of no case to answer was made on behalf of the\u00a0applicant. The\u00a0defence argued that the dash-cam footage was of poor quality and that PC Barton did not interact with the applicant for over three\u00a0years. Taking these and other elements of the recognition together, it was submitted that PC\u00a0Barton's identification was based on a\u00a0fleeting glance and an\u00a0old memory and that it was not sufficiently cogent to support any conviction by the\u00a0jury. It was said that PC\u00a0Barton was unable to identify any distinguishing features that triggered his recognition of the applicant and that PC Barton\u2019s \u201cDIY\u201d facial mapping by comparison with the custody photo carried no weight, because PC Barton was not an\u00a0expert in facial mapping. It was further suggested that the\u00a0identification procedure was in breach of PACE Code D in particular, and that the necessary safeguards intended to protect against mistaken identification were absent. It was noted, as indeed it has been before us, that another witness had been able to identify Param, but was unable to give an\u00a0opinion on the other man shown in the\u00a0dash-cam footage. In summary, the\u00a0defence argued that the supporting evidence was not sufficient to allow this case to be left to the\u00a0jury. The\u00a0cell site evidence was consistent with the applicant being at his home and there was no evidence of him being with Param at the time, noting that the\u00a0fingerprint found on the black Volvo could not be dated. 15 Counsel for the prosecution resisted the\u00a0submission and said the case could safely be left to the\u00a0jury. They said that the footage was of sufficient quality to allow for identification. Given that PC Barton had experience in the\u00a0gangs unit and had frequent contact with the applicant, the\u00a0evidence of immediate recognition was capable of being both reliable and correct. The\u00a0issues raised by the\u00a0defence were matters of weight that could be properly assessed by a\u00a0jury, along with the supporting evidence. 16 In another detailed ruling, this one dated 2 March 2021 running to 12 paragraphs, the\u00a0judge ruled in favour of the prosecution. She allowed the case to be left to the jury. She said the\u00a0footage was sufficiently clear and it was for the jury to assess it, and the\u00a0evidence of PC Barton, along with all of the other evidence. This was a\u00a0case, in her judgment, where the jury could safely convict on one view of the evidence. 17 The\u00a0second ground of appeal before us is that the judge was wrong to reject the submission of no case and that the\u00a0prosecution case, which included PC Barton's recognition evidence, should have been withdrawn from the jury. 18 In the\u00a0event, the\u00a0applicant did not give evidence. The\u00a0judge directed the\u00a0jury about the\u00a0need for caution when it came to assessing PC Barton's evidence in terms which do not now give rise to any criticism. The\u00a0jury returned guilty verdicts against the applicant. The\u00a0Grounds of Appeal 19 The\u00a0applicant seeks to appeal to this court on two grounds already outlined. Putting them together, it is said that prejudice was caused by PC Barton's identification evidence. The prejudice was exacerbated by his comparison with the custody photograph in his \u201cDIY\u201d facial mapping exercise. As to the latter, the written grounds also assert that the jury sent a note querying why they had not been told of the applicant's previous arrests and this, it is said, is itself indicative of the prejudice caused to the applicant by allowing to be introduced at trial evidence relating to the applicant\u2019s previous engagement between the\u00a0police and the applicant in past years. 20 By its written Respondent's Notice, the crown resists these grounds of appeal. 21 The\u00a0single judge provided comprehensive reasons for refusing leave to appeal in this case, finding no arguable merit in the grounds of appeal. Mr\u00a0Sherrat now in effect renews before us grounds one and two, as they were before the\u00a0single judge who addressed them on the papers. 22 We have been greatly assisted by Mr\u00a0Sherrat QC, who appears pro\u00a0bono for the applicant this morning, and we thank him for the economy of his submissions. Conclusions 23 We have considered the\u00a0points raised by Mr\u00a0Sherrat on behalf of the\u00a0applicant with care. We should confirm that we have, more than once, looked at the dash-cam footage which lies at the centre of this appeal. 24 We are not persuaded that there is any reason to doubt the\u00a0safety of this conviction. In brief, we agree with the answers to the\u00a0various points that were given by the single judge: the trial judge was entitled to conclude that the evidence of PC Barton was admissible and she was right to reject the\u00a0submission of no case. 25 We too are of the\u00a0view that the dash-cam evidence was of sufficient quality to permit an\u00a0identification. We reject the submission that this is a\u00a0case of a\u00a0fleeting glance. The\u00a0dash-cam footage is several seconds long. It could be and it was reviewed by PC Barton multiple times. PC Barton knew the\u00a0applicant already and this evidence falls squarely in the\u00a0second category in the\u00a0Attorney General's Reference No\u00a02, i.e. where a\u00a0witness knows the\u00a0defendant sufficiently well to recognise him as the\u00a0person depicted in the\u00a0footage. We also note the\u00a0other evidence which implicated the applicant in commission of this offence, which evidence supported the identification of PC Barton and tended to suggest that the applicant had indeed been close to the\u00a0scene of the crime that night. Breaches in procedure went to weight and not admissibility. 26 That deals with grounds one and two. 27 We note that in her summing-up, the\u00a0judge dealt with PC Barton's evidence very thoroughly. We note particularly para.81 \u2013 98 of her directions to the jury. She reminded the\u00a0jury of PC Barton's evidence that it was on seeing the\u00a0dash-cam evidence during the\u00a0course of the\u00a0meeting that PC Barton recognised the\u00a0man on the right as the\u00a0applicant, a recognition of which he was 95 per cent confident at the time. It was only after that that he went and looked at images of the applicant held elsewhere and reviewed the\u00a0dash-cam evidence again, at which point his degree of confidence increased. This was the\u00a0evidence PC Barton had given and it was for the jury to consider it alongside all of the other evidence in the\u00a0case. 28 The\u00a0judge told the\u00a0jury that there had been breaches of three paragraphs of the\u00a0relevant Code of Practice. She noted, in particular, the\u00a0failure to keep notes, the failure to keep records and the conduct in the \u201cDIY\u201d facial comparison exercise using custody photographs. She told the\u00a0jury it was a\u00a0matter for them to consider what effect those breaches of the\u00a0Code had on their view of the reliability of PC Barton's evidence. 29 The\u00a0judge reminded the jury of the\u00a0defence case and of the\u00a0alleged deficiencies in PC Barton's evidence and she gave them the\u00a0usual detailed direction on the need for caution when considering the\u00a0identification evidence that was put forward. That dealt satisfactorily with any risk of prejudice to the\u00a0jury. 30 Although the point was not pressed at the hearing, we reject the\u00a0suggestion that the jury was prejudiced by knowing that the applicant had come to the\u00a0attention of the police before. The\u00a0judge gave a\u00a0very clear direction to the\u00a0jury that the applicant's previous involvement with the police was relevant only to the\u00a0issue of identification. 31 There is not, and not suggested to be, any deficiency in the legal directions. 32 In all the\u00a0circumstances and having considered these matters carefully, we refuse permission to appeal this case. ______________<\/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: Background 1 On 12 March 20201, in the Central Criminal Court in front of HHJ Rafferty QC, the applicant, who was then aged 20, was convicted unanimously of one count of murder (Count 1) and one count of possession of a bladed article (Count 2). 2 On 19 April 2021 the applicant was sentenced to custody for…<\/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":[7875,24773,7622,19714,7621],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-671553","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-applicant","kji_keyword-barton","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-footage","kji_keyword-judge","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nREGINA v ELIJAH MORGAN - 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-elijah-morgan\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"REGINA v ELIJAH MORGAN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: Background 1 On 12 March 20201, in the Central Criminal Court in front of HHJ Rafferty QC, the applicant, who was then aged 20, was convicted unanimously of one count of murder (Count 1) and one count of possession of a bladed article (Count 2). 2 On 19 April 2021 the applicant was sentenced to custody for...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\/\" \/>\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=\"12 \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-elijah-morgan\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\\\/\",\"name\":\"REGINA v ELIJAH MORGAN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-24T08:37:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\\\/#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 ELIJAH MORGAN\"}]},{\"@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 ELIJAH MORGAN - 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-elijah-morgan\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"REGINA v ELIJAH MORGAN","og_description":"LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE: Background 1 On 12 March 20201, in the Central Criminal Court in front of HHJ Rafferty QC, the applicant, who was then aged 20, was convicted unanimously of one count of murder (Count 1) and one count of possession of a bladed article (Count 2). 2 On 19 April 2021 the applicant was sentenced to custody for...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\/","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":"12 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\/","name":"REGINA v ELIJAH MORGAN - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-24T08:37:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/regina-v-elijah-morgan\/#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 ELIJAH MORGAN"}]},{"@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\/671553","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=671553"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=671553"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=671553"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=671553"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=671553"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=671553"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=671553"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=671553"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}