{"id":562851,"date":"2026-04-15T00:18:37","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:18:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T00:18:37","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:18:37","slug":"stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","title":{"rendered":"Stephen Brennan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 21 January 2026 at 11.00. The hearing was delayed until 11.16 waiting on the Appellant to join. He gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. Oral evidence and submissions were heard on behalf of the Respondent from its representative by CVP. 2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 22 July 2025 to remove his name from the Register (\u2018the Register\u2019) of Approved Driving Instructors (\u2018ADIs\u2019), pursuant to section 128(2)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (\u2018the Act\u2019) on the basis that, having taken account of the Appellant\u2019s representations received by email on 23 June 2025, he was no longer a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register due to him having accepted that, on 3 April 2025, he had committed a motoring offence, namely, a breach of legislative requirements concerning control of a motor vehicle, mobile telephones and so on (CU80) for which he accepted a fixed penalty of an endorsement of 6 penalty points on his licence, pursuant to a Fixed Penalty Notice (\u2018FPN\u2019) being issued to him. In addition, the Respondent relied on the fact that the Appellant had failed to notify the offence to him within 7 days. 3. The Appellant submitted a detailed appeal on 10 August 2025, against the Respondent\u2019s said decision, reiterating, essentially, but in more detail, his representations against the stated intention of the Respondent to remove his name from the Register, including two character references and a bundle of testimonials from pupils. The Appellant made further representations, in writing, on 5 August 2025 and on 2 January 2026. The said representations, largely incorporated into his grounds of appeal, included, in terms: – that, at the time of the offence, he was sitting stationary at traffic lights in slow-moving traffic, in rush hour, was 3 minutes from his home, and was merely disconnecting his phone from its charger to pack it away, – that he was alone in his vehicle, not making or receiving any calls or texts, but accepting fully he was in the wrong, acknowledging the seriousness of the offence; – that what occurred was due to a momentary, but huge, lapse in concentration that would not recur; – that he had been an ADI for 22 years with a pass rate of over 60%; – that he apologised for what had occurred; – that he took full responsibility, having let down himself, his family (his wife and two young children, one of whom experienced ADHD, for whom he was the main breadwinner and had a mortgage) and the Registrar, causing him sleepless nights and anxiety; – that the decision under appeal, if allowed to remain, would place him in financial hardship and would be devastating to him and his family; – that he had no criminal record and had not been subject to any motor insurance claim; – that he had not wanted to go to court to contest the FPN; – that he had suffered a serious brain injury on 29 May 2020, taking 2.5 years to recover, during which time he surrendered his licence to the DVLA, but regained it after 15 months; – that being an ADI was essential to his rehabilitation, having been on a huge road to recovery over the past five years; – that his parents, prior to the death of his father from cancer on 19 December 2025, had health issues and he was his mother\u2019s chaperone, she suffering from dementia; – that the thrust of the appeal was that he was not using his mobile phone but, rather, was disconnecting it from the charger while stationary in a queue of traffic; – that his phone bills showed that no calls or texts had been made; – that Tribunal precedent [FT\/D\/2022\/67] existed where an appeal was allowed where the Appellant was detected using a mobile phone; – that the decision under appeal was too harsh and that there were mitigating circumstances; – that he assumed he had 28 days to report the offence \u2013 not 7 days \u2013 and his registration was shortly due for renewal in any event and that it was more appropriate to report the offence then, maintaining it was never his intention to deceive the Respondent regarding receiving the penalty points, that failure to report was a genuine mistake for which he apologised; – that it had taken 3 years to re-build his driving instructor business after COVID and his accident; – that he was a professional held in high regard in his community and by pupils; 4. In his oral evidence, the Appellant essentially repeated and reiterated the contents of his representations and grounds of appeal. 5. In response to questions of clarification from the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed that when the offence was committed, in the circumstances described by him in writing, he was stationary in two lanes of traffic and was waved in by a police officer who was positioned on the road some distance ahead where a traffic bottleneck had developed. He stated that the police officer did not indicate that he had seen him hold his mobile phone but, nevertheless, he accepted the FPN issued by the police officer. He emphasised, again, that he had been an ADI for some 22 years and had never had his character, behaviour or conduct called into question. He suggested again that his appeal was a lesser situation than that which appeared in the said previous decision of the Tribunal where the appeal in that case was allowed. 6. The Appellant confirmed that the Respondent had warned him on 23 June 2025 that his name might be removed from the Register, to which he gave an immediate response. He suggested that, as stated in his appeal document, there were mitigating circumstances in his case of which the Respondent may not have been aware. These included that he was holding his mobile phone but was not using it, and that what occurred was \u2018not me\u2019 but a momentary lapse in concentration. He confirmed that he engaged in further communication with the Respondent after the decision under appeal was made, emphasising that the thrust of his appeal was that he was not using his mobile phone. The Appellant advised that he had experienced a difficult two years, including sleepless nights and anxiety. He accepted that he was wrong in what he had done but stated that he was not confrontational. He confirmed that he had not sought legal advice in respect of the FPN, particularly regarding the precise nature of the offence charged. The Appellant also confirmed that he spoke to, and advised, new drivers who had received penalty points. He did not consider that the name of an ADI should be removed from the Register simply because penalty points had been received; rather, he believed that account should be taken of the entire background involved. [This was correct and was the approach adopted by the Tribunal in deciding this appeal]. 7. In response to questions from the Respondent\u2019s representative, the Appellant stated that he had been holding his mobile phone only for a matter of seconds \u2013 merely to disconnect it from the charger. He presumed this had been observed by a member of the public who may have reported it to the police officer. He confirmed he did explain the circumstances to the police officer who seemed to assume that since he, the Appellant, was alone in the vehicle, that he was using the mobile phone. [There was an absence of evidence before the Tribunal of active use of his mobile phone by the Appellant at the material time]. 8. The Respondent\u2019s representative summarised, in oral evidence, the reasons why the Respondent had decided to remove the name of the Appellant from the Register, as set out in the decision under appeal and in the Respondent\u2019s Response document. In addition, he queried why the Appellant would do what he said he had done when he was so near to his home. He confirmed that the Appellant had been observed by another person to be holding his mobile phone while driving [but there was no written evidence of this, from the Respondent, before the Tribunal] and that this fell below the standards of conduct and behaviour expected of an ADI, who was held to higher standards than those of an ordinary motorist. 9. In his Response document, the Respondent emphasised that the Appellant had accepted the FPN that resulted in his driving licence being endorsed with 6 penalty points; that teaching (generally) young people to drive was a responsible and demanding task [taken to be referring to the need for an ADI to maintain high professional standards, a submission that was accepted by the Tribunal] that should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen sense of road safety, something not demonstrated by the Appellant in receiving 6 penalty points for a motoring offence, in which penalties had recently been increased due to a significant number of casualties occurring; that offences of this nature could not be condoned as, to do so, would, effectively, sanction such behaviour if those who transgressed were allowed to have their names remain on the Register that allows them to teach others to drive and would be offensive to other ADIs, or aspiring ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, to ignore this offence. 10. In response to questions for clarification from the Tribunal, the Respondent\u2019s representative stated that the Appellant\u2019s failure to notify the commission of the offence within 7 days was an important factor in the decision under appeal being made but that more weight was attached to the commission of the motoring offence. 11. The Appellant had no questions for the Respondent\u2019s representative. 12. The Respondent\u2019s representative had no closing submissions to make. 13. The Appellant, in closing, stated that he understood the situation but that it was \u2018not me\u2019; that the situation was \u2018breaking him\u2019; that he apologised and had much regret and was seeing a therapist to help him cope with what had occurred. 14. Every piece of evidence and submissions, both written and oral from, and on behalf of the parties, was considered by the Tribunal, resulting in the Tribunal taking an exceptional course to allow this appeal, on balance of probabilities. 15. The Appellant submitted that there was precedent where an appeal by an ADI was allowed and their name not removed from the Register despite incurring penalty points for using a mobile phone while driving. However, while the Tribunal approached its Decision in this appeal, having regard to the question of proportionality, precedents of another First-tier Tribunal that may have gone in favour of some other Appellants(s) were not binding on this Tribunal and, in any event, there are very many other precedents that went the other way where the circumstances and facts were similar to those in this appeal. Further, in the specific Tribunal decision relied upon by the Appellant, the Tribunal there made it very clear that it was taking an exceptional course due to special circumstances. 16. While the Appellant did not challenge the FPN in the local Magistrates\u2019 Court, the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, found the Appellant to be credible, forthright, honest, sincere and heartfelt, and accepted that he was only holding his mobile phone and was not using it. The importance of this was that it is not a criminal offence to hold a mobile phone and does not automatically attract 6 penalty points. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that, at the time of issue of the FPN, the Appellant had been using his mobile phone (albeit even holding his mobile phone was foolish and not at all to be recommended). 17. The Respondent could, and should, in all the circumstances, have accepted that were exceptional circumstances, and could, and should, have, in the alternative, issued a warning to the Appellant, rather than make a decision to remove his name from the Register. 18. The basis of the Respondent\u2019s decision was that the Appellant did not fulfil thecriteria to be a \u2018fit and proper person\u2019, as required by the relevant provisions in the Act. 19. Conditions require that an ADI (the Appellant in this case) to be a \u2018fit and proper person\u2019. This requires account to be taken of anAppellant\u2019s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of allmaterial matters, including convictions for offences including, as in this case, a motoring offence, and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters incontext, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate. The Respondent may take theview that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change incircumstances. 20. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent\u2019s decision proceeds as an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent\u2019s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent\u2019s decision-making process. 21. The Appellant, in essence, correctly submitted in both his written and oral evidence that all of the circumstances had to examined and that the penalty imposed on him in respect of a motoring offence did not, and should not, result in automatic removal of his name from the Register. 22. The Tribunal found that, while the Appellant did not challenge the alleged offence in the local Magistrates\u2019 Court, the commission of the alleged offence was not, in fact, made out. The Tribunal also accepted that the Appellant had medical issues and did not like confrontation; was deeply remorseful and what occurred would not recur. It was accepted that the Appellant loved his career as an ADI and that he was an otherwise diligent, long-standing ADI. The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant understood the standards expected of an ADI. 23. While the Tribunal was conscious of, and was bound by, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved DrivingInstructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 that stated, inter alia – \u201c….. the condition is not simply that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor;it is that he is a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the Register. Registration carrieswith it an official seal of approval ….. the maintenance of public confidence in the Register is important. For that purpose, the Registrar must be in a position to carry out his function of scrutinyeffectively, including consideration of the implications of any convictions of an applicant or aRegistered Approved Driving Instructor. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.\u201d However, the Tribunal considered that, on the facts of the instant appeal, where there were exceptional circumstances, the application of this authority could be distinguished in the Appellant\u2019s favour. 24. In reaching its Decision, the Tribunal took into account all of the evidence and submissions received, both written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal. 25. The Tribunal also considered the wider context of the Appellant\u2019s professional conduct. 26. The decision of the Tribunal in this appeal does not take away from the importance which attaches to the integrity ofthe Register. For the public to have trust init, the Respondent must act in a way that encourages belief that those on it have high standards. Allowing those who do not meet those standards would undermine the trust placed in it with serious consequences for those who do maintain the necessary high standards.These are matters of wider, and public interest, which attract significant weight even where, as in this case, removal of the Appellant\u2019s name from the Register may have had significant consequences for the Appellant. 27. The Appellant is strongly reminded that he must always take care to meet his responsibilities as a qualified ADI. 28. Accordingly, the appeal isallowed.<\/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":"

1. This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 21 January 2026 at 11.00. The hearing was delayed until 11.16 waiting on the Appellant to join. He gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. Oral evidence and submissions were heard on behalf of the Respondent from its representative by CVP. 2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7631],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7638],"kji_keyword":[7705,7633,7925,7634,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-562851","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-transport","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-famille","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-offence","kji_keyword-respondent","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nStephen Brennan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors - 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\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Stephen Brennan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 21 January 2026 at 11.00. The hearing was delayed until 11.16 waiting on the Appellant to join. He gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. Oral evidence and submissions were heard on behalf of the Respondent from its representative by CVP. 2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/\" \/>\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=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"13 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/\",\"name\":\"Stephen Brennan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T22:18:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Stephen Brennan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"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\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/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\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Stephen Brennan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors - 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\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Stephen Brennan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors","og_description":"1. This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 21 January 2026 at 11.00. The hearing was delayed until 11.16 waiting on the Appellant to join. He gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. Oral evidence and submissions were heard on behalf of the Respondent from its representative by CVP. 2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"13 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","name":"Stephen Brennan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T22:18:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/stephen-brennan-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Stephen Brennan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","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\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/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\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/562851","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562851"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=562851"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=562851"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=562851"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=562851"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=562851"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=562851"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=562851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}