{"id":745438,"date":"2026-04-29T05:41:34","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T03:41:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-29T05:41:34","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T03:41:34","slug":"r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Tyrone Joseph Vassel"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

MR JUSTICE FORDHAM: 1 On\u00a023\u00a0September\u00a02019 the applicant (who is now aged\u00a022) came to\u00a0be\u00a0sentenced by\u00a0His Honour Judge Challinor (\u201cthe judge\u201d) at Stafford Crown Court. The applicant had pleaded guilty on\u00a020\u00a0June\u00a02019 to\u00a0three offences committed on\u00a029\u00a0August\u00a02018. (1) Causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to\u00a0section\u00a018 of\u00a0Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (count 1). (2) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to\u00a0section\u00a047 of\u00a01861 (count 2). (3) Affray, contrary to section 3(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 (count 3). There was a\u00a0co-defendant, Matthew Kerr. Kerr pleaded guilty at\u00a0the pre-trial preparation hearing (\u201cPTPH\u201d) on\u00a02\u00a0January\u00a02019 to\u00a0the lesser offence of\u00a0causing grievous bodily harm without intent (count\u00a01). Kerr\u00a0subsequently changed his plea to\u00a0guilty in relation to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (count\u00a02) and affray (count\u00a03). Kerr\u00a0was sentenced, at the same time as\u00a0the applicant, to\u00a018 months' imprisonment overall. 2 In\u00a0the early hours of\u00a0the morning of\u00a029\u00a0August\u00a02018 the applicant and Kerr were both in the centre of\u00a0Stafford. As\u00a0the applicant walked towards the Casa nightclub, intending to\u00a0go\u00a0to\u00a0the local kebab shop on\u00a0the way, both he\u00a0and Kerr attacked Callum Hodgson who was standing outside the kebab shop waiting for a\u00a0friend. They punched Mr Hodgson in\u00a0the face. He sustained a cut to\u00a0his top lip and a swelling under his right eye. That was the count\u00a02 offending: ABH. The applicant and Kerr then entered the kebab shop and started arguing with customers, picking a fight with them and threatening them with violence. The shop keeper asked them to leave. That was the count\u00a03 offending: affray. The applicant and Kerr then moved on\u00a0to\u00a0the Casa\u00a0nightclub where they encountered Thomas Ward standing outside the club. The three men appeared to\u00a0engage in\u00a0an\u00a0argument before punches were thrown. Kerr punched Mr\u00a0Ward, who fell to\u00a0the ground. While Mr\u00a0Ward was on\u00a0the ground, the applicant stamped on\u00a0Mr\u00a0Ward's head. That was the count\u00a01 offending: GBH. Both the applicant and Kerr were chased off by\u00a0the nightclub's door staff, who attended to\u00a0Mr\u00a0Ward. Having left Mr\u00a0Ward unconscious, the applicant and Kerr ran off and tried to get in\u00a0a\u00a0taxi, but were turned away. They then returned to the scene and became aggressive with the door staff. The police had been called to the nightclub by the town centre CCTV operator, the CCTV having captured the attack on\u00a0Mr\u00a0Ward. Police officers arrived and arrested the applicant and Kerr after a\u00a0short foot chase with the use of\u00a0a\u00a0police dog. 3 We\u00a0have been assisted by\u00a0the written and oral submissions by\u00a0counsel Mr\u00a0Rudge. In\u00a0the grounds of\u00a0appeal Mr\u00a0Rudge has described what the CCTV showed in relation to the attack on\u00a0Mr\u00a0Ward as follows: "CCTV shows what appeared to\u00a0be\u00a0an\u00a0argument between all three before punches were thrown. Kerr punches Mr\u00a0Ward and knocks him to\u00a0the ground, seemingly unconscious. Whilst on\u00a0the floor, the applicant can be seen to\u00a0stamp on\u00a0Mr\u00a0Ward's head." An\u00a0up-dating report dated 14\u00a0June\u00a02019 from the probation service, which was before the judge, said this: "CCTV shows both the applicant and Kerr assaulting Mr\u00a0Ward outside the nightclub. Kerr is seen to\u00a0deliver a\u00a0punch that knocked Mr\u00a0Ward unconscious, prior to\u00a0hitting the ground. And the applicant is seen to\u00a0stamp on\u00a0Mr\u00a0Ward's head whilst he\u00a0was lying unconscious on\u00a0the floor.\u201d The judge confirmed that he\u00a0had viewed the CCTV before proceeding to\u00a0sentence. 4 Mr\u00a0Ward sustained very serious head and facial injuries which were life threatening. He\u00a0suffered a\u00a0bleed onto\u00a0the brain, as well as\u00a0a\u00a0fractured jaw and cheek. He had 57\u00a0staples to\u00a0his head as a\u00a0result of\u00a0surgery. The judge had two victim personal statements from Mr\u00a0Ward dated 13\u00a0December 2018 and 9\u00a0August\u00a02019. The case had come before the judge for sentence on\u00a023\u00a0August\u00a02019 when it\u00a0was decided that up-to-date medical evidence was appropriate. That medical evidence arriving out of\u00a0an\u00a0examination of\u00a06\u00a0September was read out in\u00a0court by\u00a0prosecution counsel. In\u00a0his sentencing remarks, the judge said this: "Mr\u00a0Ward sustained very serious head and\u00a0facial injuries. The injuries were life threatening. He\u00a0suffered a\u00a0bleed onto\u00a0the brain as well as fractures to\u00a0his facial bones. He\u00a0complains that he\u00a0still has a\u00a0reduced grip, is somewhat deaf in\u00a0his left ear. He complains that his speech and balance have been affected and that his right eye waters. He\u00a0still suffers short-term memory loss and he has been left, understandably, very nervous about going out in\u00a0public, particularly at night. His statement of\u00a09\u00a0August of this year shows that he\u00a0is\u00a0still affected by\u00a0this attack some twelve months later. The latest examination of\u00a0him by\u00a0a\u00a0doctor shows that he\u00a0has made a\u00a0significant and substantial recovery, and as a\u00a0result, I\u00a0have reduced the sentences that I\u00a0have thought were otherwise appropriate.\u201d 5 The applicant was aged 19 at the time of\u00a0three offences. He\u00a0had one previous conviction for possession of\u00a0a\u00a0knife in\u00a0a\u00a0public place, an\u00a0offence committed in\u00a0March\u00a02018. The Staffordshire Magistrates' Court on\u00a011\u00a0May\u00a02018 had imposed an\u00a0eight-week custodial sentence for that offence, suspended for twelve months. The offences on\u00a029\u00a0August\u00a02018 put the applicant in\u00a0breach of\u00a0that suspended sentence order, a\u00a0matter which was also before the judge. From 29\u00a0August\u00a02018 onwards the applicant was remanded on\u00a0bail with an electronically monitored curfew condition, a\u00a0qualifying curfew counting as\u00a0time served pursuant to\u00a0section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. 6 The judge's approach to\u00a0sentencing the applicant involved five identifiable stages. The first stage was that the judge focused on\u00a0the section\u00a018\u00a0offence (occasioning grievous bodily harm with intent), as\u00a0what the prosecution counsel had described as\u00a0\u201cthe lead offence\u201d, to\u00a0be\u00a0addressed by\u00a0reference to\u00a0the General Guideline: Overarching Principles and the Definitive Guideline on\u00a0Assault. That was the first stage. The second stage involved the judge addressing the appropriate offence category pursuant to\u00a0the Assault Guideline. The judge identified the appropriate category as\u00a0Category\u00a01 with its starting point of\u00a0twelve years' custody and its range of\u00a0nine years to\u00a0sixteen years' custody. That was stage two. The third stage involved the judge identifying the appropriate sentence prior to\u00a0reduction for guilty plea, having taken into account factors increasing or reducing the seriousness and personal mitigation. The description in the grounds of appeal in relation to this third stage recognises that the judge arrived at nine years before applying credit for plea. The fourth stage involves the appropriate reduction for guilty plea. This took the judge from the nine years at\u00a0the third stage to\u00a0a\u00a0sentence of\u00a0eight years. Finally, the fifth stage addressed the sentences for the two other offences, the breach of\u00a0the suspended sentence order, the question of whether sentences should be consecutive or concurrent and the question of totality. The judge said this, in\u00a0relation to the fifth stage: "Mr Rudge has argued that I should look at\u00a0the totality of the sentence. I\u00a0could add up the sentences to\u00a0make a\u00a0very long sentence indeed, but I\u00a0must look to\u00a0the Totality Guideline and impose a\u00a0sentence which in the circumstances is just and proportionate. In\u00a0those circumstances, the sentences will be as follows: there will be a\u00a0sentence of\u00a0eight years' imprisonment for the section\u00a018\u00a0offence; the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, six\u00a0months concurrent; for the affray, 12\u00a0months, concurrent; and the suspended sentence, eight weeks, concurrent. All of\u00a0that comes to\u00a0eight years." The judge explained at the end of\u00a0his sentencing remarks, "Eight years is the least sentence I\u00a0can impose for this very serious offence." 7 The grounds of\u00a0appeal make no\u00a0complaint about the first stage. Reference is made to\u00a0the length of\u00a0sentences on\u00a0counts\u00a02 and 3\u00a0and the activation of\u00a0the entirety of\u00a0the eight weeks' suspended sentence, but the grounds of\u00a0appeal expressly state that, since all of these were ordered to\u00a0run concurrently at\u00a0the fifth stage, about which no\u00a0complaint is\u00a0made, no\u00a0issue is\u00a0taken in relation to those. As\u00a0to\u00a0the second stage, the grounds of appeal again make no\u00a0complaint. They expressly recognise that the judge identified the correct offence category, Category\u00a01, and starting point, 12 years, with its category range of 9 years to\u00a016 years' custody. As\u00a0to\u00a0\u201charm\u201d, the applicant accepts that this matter was greater harm due to the injury sustained by\u00a0the victim Mr\u00a0Ward. As to \u201cculpability\u201d, the applicant accepts that culpability was high due to the use of\u00a0the foot, a\u00a0shod foot, as\u00a0it is described in the guideline. 8 A\u00a0ground of\u00a0appeal had been put forward and has been maintained today relating to\u00a0the fourth stage, the reduction for guilty plea. Mr\u00a0Rudge initially submitted that what the judge did in\u00a0his sentencing remarks was to\u00a0give credit of\u00a010 per cent. What the judge actually said was this: "I\u00a0am asked to give you more credit than 10 per cent, which I\u00a0do.\u201d The reduction, as\u00a0Mr\u00a0Rudge accepts, was from nine years to\u00a0eight years. The single judge said that this was credit of\u00a0\u201ca\u00a0little over 10 per cent\u201d. We agree. The grounds of appeal contend that it should have been \u201cat\u00a0least 15\u00a0per\u00a0cent\u201d, given the timing of\u00a0the plea. There is nothing in\u00a0that point and there is\u00a0nothing, in our judgment, in\u00a0any criticism of\u00a0the \u201clittle over 10 per cent\u201d that the judge gave. The applicant had pleaded not guilty at\u00a0the PTPH on 2 January 2019 and a trial date was fixed for 25\u00a0March\u00a02019. The trial did not proceed on\u00a0that date due to lack of\u00a0court time. A\u00a0new trial date was fixed for 28 May 2019. It\u00a0was at that stage that the applicant indicated that he\u00a0wished to\u00a0change his plea to\u00a0guilty and the new trial was vacated. In\u00a0all those circumstances, which were well appreciated by\u00a0the judge, there was no\u00a0entitlement to\u00a0a\u00a0reduction of\u00a0\u201cat\u00a0least 15 per\u00a0cent\u201d, as\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0put in the grounds of\u00a0appeal, and there was no\u00a0error of approach by the judge in giving \u201ca\u00a0little over 10\u00a0per cent\u201d. 9 A\u00a0further ground of\u00a0appeal was put forward and has been maintained, though clarified, relating to qualifying curfew. It was submitted in the grounds of\u00a0appeal that there was a\u00a0relevant period of\u00a0curfew which should have counted towards the sentence served, instead of being taken into consideration in the overall sentencing by\u00a0the Judge. There is nothing in\u00a0that point, once one clarifies what the actual position and consequence of\u00a0the judge's sentence is. The judge made reference to\u00a0having \u2018taken fully into account the curfew that the applicant had been subjected to\u2019,\u00a0which he\u00a0identified as\u00a0being appropriately \u2018about six\u00a0months\u2019. That description matches the credit for time spent on\u00a0bail with an electronically monitored curfew condition pursuant to\u00a0section 240A\u00a0of\u00a0the 2003 Act. The order for imprisonment records, as\u00a0do we, that the court directed, pursuant to section 240A(2), that 196 days would count as\u00a0time served towards the sentence of\u00a08\u00a0years. The judge's remark about taking the curfew days into account did not have the consequence (and seems very unlikely to have had the intention) of\u00a0factoring those days into the calculation of\u00a0the eight years. There can therefore be no\u00a0complaint arising out of\u00a0that. The position was clarified in the sentence order, and has just been clarified again by us. There was previously an\u00a0electronicallymonitored curfew, as a constituent element of the suspended sentence, but the judge activated the custodial term and, as\u00a0we have explained, the applicant disavows any point arising out of\u00a0that. 10 What remains, then, is the third stage. The remaining grounds of\u00a0appeal submit in\u00a0essence that the judge's approach in\u00a0arriving at\u00a0the sentence of\u00a0nine years before reduction for guilty plea produced a\u00a0manifestly excessive sentence. In\u00a0the grounds of\u00a0appeal the following five points were\u00a0emphasised: one, that the applicant had no\u00a0previous convictions for assault; two, that he was young, aged 19 at the time of the offending; three, that he had shown remorse; four, that the on-going effect upon the victim involved no ongoing disability and five, that the offence involved a\u00a0single blow. We will come back to\u00a0the single blow point. In\u00a0his oral submissions Mr\u00a0Rudge has emphasised the personal mitigation, including what he\u00a0characterises as\u00a0the applicant's full co-operation with probation and full attendance at\u00a0court hearings. The first four of\u00a0the five points were specifically referred to\u00a0in the judge's sentencing remarks. He said, "You are relatively lightly convicted." He said, "You are still relatively young. He\u00a0also said, "I\u00a0accept that you are remorseful." So far as\u00a0on-going effect on\u00a0the victim not involving an\u00a0on-going disability, the judge\u00a0said the \u201clatest examination by\u00a0a\u00a0doctor shows that Mr\u00a0Ward has made a\u00a0significant and substantial recovery", in\u00a0a\u00a0passage which we have already quoted. These were all taken into account by\u00a0the judge, as\u00a0were other points. The judge accepted that there had been delay in the case which was not the applicant's fault. He was clearly well aware of\u00a0co-operation and attendance on\u00a0the part of the applicant. He\u00a0also referred to\u00a0the fact that the applicant's partner was expecting a\u00a0baby. But he\u00a0also referred to\u00a0the fact that the applicant was subject to\u00a0a\u00a0suspended sentence and supervision at the time of\u00a0these offences. 11 We turn to the fifth point, the single blow. At\u00a0the start of\u00a0his sentencing remarks, the judge had said this, as\u00a0recorded in\u00a0the transcript: "You then moved on to the Casa, where you encountered Thomas Ward, again, someone you did not know who was no\u00a0threat to you. You both attacked. He\u00a0was punched by\u00a0you, Kerr. He fell to the floor, where you, Vassel, stamped repeatedly on\u00a0his head. He\u00a0sustained very serious head and facial injuries." The reference to\u00a0\u201cstamped repeatedly\u201d was picked up on\u00a0by\u00a0the single judge who, when refusing leave to appeal, said: "This was not a\u00a0single blow. You stamped on\u00a0the victim's head repeatedly, causing him substantial injury." In\u00a0subsequent exchanges with the Criminal Appeal Office, the applicant's representatives pointed out that the prosecution case, borne out by\u00a0the CCTV footage, had been that there was only one stamp to\u00a0Mr\u00a0Ward's head. The CAO\u00a0advised that the application for leave to\u00a0repeal could be renewed, and so\u00a0it\u00a0has been. In\u00a0written submissions (relating to\u00a0why no\u00a0loss of\u00a0time order ought to\u00a0arise in\u00a0this case if the renewal application is unsuccessful), the purpose of\u00a0the renewed application was described as follows: "The applicant seeks clarification solely as\u00a0to\u00a0whether the single judge's view on\u00a0the merit of\u00a0the appeal against sentence is altered on the basis that there was no\u00a0repeated assault." That point has remained a\u00a0point of\u00a0focus in the oral submissions before us. Mr\u00a0Rudge submitted if this case were taken as\u00a0an offence of\u00a0repeated stamping on\u00a0the head, that could stand to have a\u00a0significant effect on\u00a0the seriousness, and therefore on\u00a0overall sentence. 12 The starting point in\u00a0dealing with that is the CCTV. We\u00a0explained at\u00a0the beginning of\u00a0this judgment that the CCTV shows that there was a\u00a0single stamp to\u00a0the head of\u00a0Mr\u00a0Ward by\u00a0the applicant. We are quite satisfied that that fact, viewed independently and viewed alongside the other features of\u00a0this case, does not arguably render the sentence imposed by the judge manifestly excessive or wrong in\u00a0principle or\u00a0involving any error of\u00a0approach. We will explain why. It\u00a0is\u00a0true that the judge used the phrase, "stamped repeatedly on\u00a0his head" at\u00a0the beginning of\u00a0the sentencing remarks. It\u00a0is,\u00a0however, very clear from the judge's later reasoning that he\u00a0was sentencing the applicant on\u00a0the basis that there had been a\u00a0single stamp to\u00a0Mr\u00a0Ward's head. The critical passage in the judge's reasoning is as follows: "This really takes me to\u00a0a\u00a0sentence of\u00a0nine years. You are relatively lightly convicted. You were subject to\u00a0a\u00a0suspended sentence and supervision at\u00a0the time of\u00a0these offences and the stamp to\u00a0Thomas Ward's head was when he\u00a0was clearly unconscious and very vulnerable." The judge, clearly and unambiguously, referred there to \u201cthe stamp\u201d as\u00a0a\u00a0single stamp to\u00a0the head. Moreover, that was linked to\u00a0the singular word "was" in\u00a0the same sentence and in the phrase "the stamp … was when …". This part of\u00a0reasoning was when the judge was explaining how he\u00a0had approached the third stage, arriving at nine years. The judge had seen the CCTV. The judge was sentencing the applicant on\u00a0the basis that there had been a\u00a0single stamp to\u00a0the head. The factually incorrect description, found near the start of the remarks, uncorrected by\u00a0counsel, had thus stood corrected by\u00a0the judge himself at\u00a0the crux of\u00a0the sentencing assessment. The judge appreciated the correct position and showed that he\u00a0did so. There was no\u00a0material misapprehension of\u00a0the true factual position, but a\u00a0clear statement of\u00a0a\u00a0correct appreciation. Nor was there any error of\u00a0approach. The judge put the fact that it\u00a0was one stamp to\u00a0the head alongside all the other features of the case. As\u00a0the judge's description explained, this was a\u00a0stamp to\u00a0the head of\u00a0a\u00a0victim who had been punched by\u00a0the co-defendant, Kerr, who had fallen to\u00a0the ground clearly unconscious and who was very vulnerable. The judge had an\u00a0evaluative exercise of sentencing judgment to\u00a0undertake at\u00a0the third stage, having regard to\u00a0the relevant offence category, starting point and range at which he\u00a0had arrived at\u00a0the second stage. He\u00a0needed to\u00a0consider all relevant factors as\u00a0to\u00a0seriousness and reflecting personal mitigation. That is what he\u00a0did. We are quite satisfied that there is\u00a0no\u00a0arguable basis on\u00a0which it can be said that nine years, prior to\u00a0reduction for guilty plea, was manifestly excessive in\u00a0all the circumstances of\u00a0this case. 13 Finally, we accept, in the light of the characterisation by\u00a0the single judge and the advice of\u00a0the CAO, that the unsuccessful renewal of\u00a0leave to appeal should not lead to\u00a0a\u00a0loss of\u00a0time order. As\u00a0to\u00a0the three-day extension of\u00a0time which the application for leave to\u00a0appeal necessitated, like the single judge, we would have extended time, had there been merit in the application for leave to appeal in the light of the explanation put forward by\u00a0the applicant's solicitors. There are no\u00a0properly arguable grounds of\u00a0appeal against sentence. This renewed application 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":"

MR JUSTICE FORDHAM: 1 On 23 September 2019 the applicant (who is now aged 22) came to be sentenced by His Honour Judge Challinor (\u201cthe judge\u201d) at Stafford Crown Court. The applicant had pleaded guilty on 20 June 2019 to three offences committed on 29 August 2018. (1) Causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of Offences…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[41198],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,7875,7621,8348,8347],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-745438","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-41198","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-years","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Tyrone Joseph Vassel - 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-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Tyrone Joseph Vassel\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MR JUSTICE FORDHAM: 1 On 23 September 2019 the applicant (who is now aged 22) came to be sentenced by His Honour Judge Challinor (\u201cthe judge\u201d) at Stafford Crown Court. The applicant had pleaded guilty on 20 June 2019 to three offences committed on 29 August 2018. (1) Causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of Offences...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/\" \/>\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=\"16 \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-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Tyrone Joseph Vassel - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-29T03:41:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\\\/#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 Tyrone Joseph Vassel\"}]},{\"@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 Tyrone Joseph Vassel - 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-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Tyrone Joseph Vassel","og_description":"MR JUSTICE FORDHAM: 1 On 23 September 2019 the applicant (who is now aged 22) came to be sentenced by His Honour Judge Challinor (\u201cthe judge\u201d) at Stafford Crown Court. The applicant had pleaded guilty on 20 June 2019 to three offences committed on 29 August 2018. (1) Causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of Offences...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/","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":"16 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/","name":"R v Tyrone Joseph Vassel - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-29T03:41:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-tyrone-joseph-vassel-2\/#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 Tyrone Joseph Vassel"}]},{"@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\/745438","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=745438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=745438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=745438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=745438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=745438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=745438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=745438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=745438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}