{"id":562925,"date":"2026-04-15T00:26:54","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:26:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T00:26:54","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:26:54","slug":"antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Antony Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

11. In a decision notice dated 24 July 2025. the Commissioner concluded that the BBC was entitled to rely on sections 38(1)(b) and 40(2) or 42 to withhold information. The Commissioner held that the BBC had breached section 17(3) FOIA. No steps were required. Section 38 \u2013 health and safety 12. The Commissioner found that there was a causal link between the disclosure of the information and the likelihood of endangerment to the safety of individuals, because the withheld information relates to physical security and building integrity and is a current and ongoing concern. 13. The Commissioner was satisfied that the risk of endangerment to health and safety was not based on mere assumption or belief and that the risk was logical and substantially more than remote. He accepted that endangerment was placed in the \u2018would be likely to occur\u2019 category. 14. Whilst the information is from 2017, the Commissioner said that its contents and breadth of coverage were still relevant and the Commissioner was persuaded that there was a real possibility of the harm envisaged occurring. 15. In particular, the Commissioner was satisfied that disclosure could increase the risk to, and vulnerability of, the site, thereby endangering the safety of employees and the public. 16. The Commissioner recognised that there was a public interest in understanding the circumstances and reasons for changes to public access. He declined to determine whether or not the BBC was guilty of wrongdoing. 17. The Commissioner recognised the public interest in transparency and accountability, and noted that the BBC had some provided information in scope of the request along with further disclosure during the Commissioners investigation. 18. The Commissioner noted the BBC\u2019s arguments that Broadcasting House is a high profile location, regularly hosting prominent staff and visitors. It is the focus of demonstrations and public attention. In this context, the safety and security of individuals remain paramount. The BBC plays a critical role in the government\u2019s response during crisis situation, with a responsibility to continue broadcasting throughout national emergencies. This heightens the imperative to maintain the confidentiality of security arrangements. 19. In the circumstances, the Commissioner concluded that there was a strong public interest in protecting those at risk of harm and ensuring the responsible use of information. He concluded that the public interest balance favoured maintaining the exemption. Grounds of Appeal 20. The Grounds of Appeal are that the Commissioner got the public interest balance wrong, in essence because the established facts give rise to a plausible suspicion of wrongdoing, which the Commissioner refused to engage with. The Commissioner\u2019s response 21. The Commissioner submitted that regardless of whether or not the withheld information probably shows wrongdoing has occurred in respect of a deed between Westminster Council and the BBC, which the BBC allegedly breached, this is not enough to outweigh the very weighty public interest in maintaining the safety of BBC staff and on set audiences from the risk of harm that disclosure would be likely to cause. 22. The Commissioner noted the importance of maintaining the exemption is strong, and submitted that the suspicion of wrongdoing is not a very weighty countervailing consideration to outweigh the risk to the safety of BBC staff, visitors and on set audiences. Response from the BBC 23. The BBC noted that the grounds of appeal do not challenge the engagement of section 38 and submitted in any event that section 38 is engaged. 24. The BBC submitted that the information could be used as follows: a. Threats have previously been directed towards staff members in specific departments; and if the physical locations of those departments were made known, there would be a significant and real chance of that information being used in a targeted attack. b. Detailed information about the security measures and protocols in place at Broadcasting House would assist threat actors in identifying vulnerabilities and circumventing those measures. c. Threat actors would benefit from knowledge of specific recommendations which were and were not implemented by the BBC, as these identify known vulnerabilities in security. d. Information about staff training and protocols would enable a threat actor to anticipate staff responses and thereby circumvent security measures. 25. The BBC submitted that use of the information for the purposes of a targeted attack is a real and serious likelihood because there have been a high number of security incidents in recent years. It submitted that infiltration of Broadcasting House by malefactors would endanger the public more generally for reasons given in the closed bundle. 26. In relation to the public interest the BBC submitted that there is a clear and strong public interest in maintaining the exemption and very weighty countervailing considerations would be required to outweigh the likely endangerment that would arise from disclosure. The BBC submitted that the public interest in disclosure in this case was particularly strong because there is both likely endangerment to staff and to the public at large. 27. The BBC acknowledged the important general public interest in accountability and transparency and the general public interest in understanding the extent of and rationale for restrictions to public access to Broadcasting House. The BBC submitted that that public interest is largely served by the information already disclosed. 28. In relation to the suspicion of wrongdoing, the BBC does not accept that there is any prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. It submitted that the statements made by the BBC to Westminster City Council in 2017 to the effect that public access would ultimately be resumed were entirely in line with the BBC\u2019s intentions at the time, as evidenced by contemporaneous documents. Further, the BBC submitted that, in any event, a suspicion of wrongdoing could not outweigh the heavy public interest in non-disclosure. A great deal of transparency has already been achieved and the redacted information has no relevance to the suspicions. Mr Williams\u2019 reply 29. Mr. Williams submitted that it seems unlikely that every redaction is of equal safety concern, and that so many minor pieces of information, from 2017 could still, if disclosed, lead to a very significant and or weighty change of a situation that is dangerous. Mr. Williams submitted that known vulnerabilities presumably would have been addressed. 30. Mr. Williams submitted that the BBC\u2019s approach is not in line with their willingness to otherwise disclose information in these topics, for example making public the location of specific BBC services within Broadcasting House, briefing the media on specific security measures and including concern about fire exits in their section 106 application to Westminster City Council. Mr. William submitted that the BBC take an absolutist approach on section 38 that it is engaged with anything tangentially touching on security. 31. He submitted that there is only a minor and theoretical possibility of endangerment and challenges the submission that there are no borderline cases where the additional public interest in disclosure would affect the balance. 32. Mr. Williams highlighted that the BBC applied to Westminster Council after Mr. Williams raised his concerns about wrongdoing and after the Council had told the BBC that they would commence legal enforcement action against the BBC. He submitted that the BBC could have but did not make an application to the Council in 2017 and instead removed public access while telling the Council that they had merely changed the entrance. He submitted that they knowingly made a misleading statement in a planning application which is fraud. 33. Mr Williams submitted that BBC have offered no explanation for the inconsistency between their March 2017 decision to permanently close the Media Caf\u00e9 to the public and their September 2017 planning application to Westminster City Council (WCC), which affirmed continued public access. The author notes that the processes were six months apart, both involved senior management, and both engaged the BBC at the highest level. 34. Mr. Williams submitted that the evidence suggests the BBC made a single, settled decision in March 2017 to remove public access on a long-term basis and that the BBC entered into the December 2017 agreement and did not comply with its terms. He says that the BBC provided misleading explanations to subsequent enforcement enquiries and that they moved to legal compliance when the Council rejected their temporary closure explanations. The author rejects the BBC\u2019s assertion that no circumstances point to wrongdoing and maintains that there is a public interest in understanding the BBC\u2019s conduct in a formal regulatory process. Legal framework Section 38 \u2013 health and safety 35. Section 38(1) FOIA provides that information is exempt information if its disclosure would or would be likely to: (a) Endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or (b) Endanger the safety of any individual. 36. Section 38 is a qualified exemption and so the tribunal must go on to consider if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Task of the Tribunal 37. The tribunal\u2019s remit is governed by s 58 FOIA. This requires the tribunal to consider whether the decision made by the Commissioner is in accordance with the law or, where the Commissioner\u2019s decision involved exercising discretion, whether he should have exercised it differently. The tribunal may receive evidence that was not before the Commissioner and may make different findings of fact from the Commissioner. Issues 38. The issues we have to determine are: Section 38 \u2013 health and safety 39. Whether disclosure would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual. This entails: a. Identifying the applicable interest within the exemption. b. Considering the nature of the danger (identifying a causal relationship and that it passes a de minimis threshold) c. Determining the likelihood of danger (more probable than not or a real and significant risk of endangerment) 40. In all the circumstances of the case, whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. This includes: a. Identifying what actual harm or prejudice the proposed disclosure would or would be likely to cause, focussing on the public interests expressed in the particular exemption in issue. b. Identifying what actual benefits the proposed disclosure would or would be likely to cause. Evidence 41. We read an open and a closed bundle of documents. It was necessary to withhold the closed bundles from Mr. Williams, otherwise the purpose of the appeal would be defeated. The open and closed bundles include a witness statement from Mark Fewster, Safety, Security & Resilience Specialist at the BBC dated 23 September 2025. Discussion and conclusions Is the exemption engaged? 42. The tribunal considers that the applicable interest in the exemption is the protection of physical or mental health. 43. The endangerment or harm relied on by the BBC is a danger to the physical health of BBC staff or others in or around Broadcasting House. 44. We have reviewed the withheld information in detail and taken account of the evidence of Mark Fewster, who has significant experience security both at the BBC and working for the BBC while employed by Mitie. 45. The information contains: a. Exact locations of particular BBC services in relation to which threats have been made. b. Details of security measures and protocols at Broadcasting House that remain in place. c. Details of security recommendations that have not been implemented by the BBC. d. Details of staff training and protocols. 46. Mr. Fewster has provided detailed and convincing explanations of how this information could be used by individuals with criminal intent. Taking account of the evidence of the general level of threat of attack and the specific examples of incidents and threats, we accept that the BBC has shown a causative link between disclosure of this information and a real and significant risk of endangerment. 47. Having looked at the withheld material, we do not accept that the BBC has taken an \u2018absolutist\u2019 or blanket approach. We accept that the BBC have identified and disclosed any material that does not carry the identified risk of misuse. We do not accept that the fact that the BBC has, on other occasions, seen fit to disclose more limited information about security undermines our conclusion on the risks of disclosing this information. 48. We accept that the locations of certain departments within the BBC might be ascertainable from other information in the public domain. In our view an official confirmation direct from the BBC, combined with the other security information contained in the withheld information, would be likely to be of use to a malefactor. 49. On this basis we find that the exemption is engaged. The public interest in withholding the information 50. Although the likelihood of the release of this information leading to an incident where individuals are harmed is not high, if such an incident occurred the consequences are very serious. Further, the BBC has emergency broadcasting obligations which is a critical public service. A risk to its security carries a risk to its ability to maintain broadcast operations and is a risk to public safety more generally. Again, whilst the risk of this is not high, the consequences would be extremely serious. Taking all that into account, in our view there is a very strong public interest in maintaining the exemption. The public interest in disclosure 51. We have reviewed the withheld information carefully. There is nothing in the information which sheds light on any of the wrongdoing alleged by Mr. Williams whether by confirming it or refuting it. Any parts of the document that relate to the issues raised by Mr. Williams have been disclosed to him. On that basis, the alleged wrongdoing adds nothing to the general public interest in transparency. 52. On that basis we do not need to decide if there is a plausible suspicion of wrongdoing. We do, in any event, disagree with Mr. Williams that the documents in the bundle show that the BBC had made a decision to remove public access permanently in March 2017. Having reviewed the documents in the open bundle and having taken account of the evidence provided by Mr. Fewster, we do not accept that there is a plausible suspicion that the BBC made false statements to Westminster Council in 2017. 53. We accept that there is a general public interest in disclosure to ensure transparency and accountability in relation the security measures taken by the BBC. Conclusions on the public interest balance 54. Having considered all the factors set out above, the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the very strong public interest in maintaining the exemption. The appeal is dismissed. Signed:Date: Judge Buckley26 February 2026 Amended on 24 March 2026<\/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":"

11. In a decision notice dated 24 July 2025. the Commissioner concluded that the BBC was entitled to rely on sections 38(1)(b) and 40(2) or 42 to withhold information. The Commissioner held that the BBC had breached section 17(3) FOIA. No steps were required. Section 38 \u2013 health and safety 12. The Commissioner found that there was a causal link…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7609],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7702],"kji_keyword":[7694,7615,7663,7617,9664],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-562925","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-information-rights","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-immobilier","kji_keyword-commissioner","kji_keyword-information","kji_keyword-interest","kji_keyword-public","kji_keyword-submitted","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nAntony Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor - 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\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Antony Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"11. In a decision notice dated 24 July 2025. the Commissioner concluded that the BBC was entitled to rely on sections 38(1)(b) and 40(2) or 42 to withhold information. The Commissioner held that the BBC had breached section 17(3) FOIA. No steps were required. Section 38 \u2013 health and safety 12. The Commissioner found that there was a causal link...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/\" \/>\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=\"12 \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\\\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\\\/\",\"name\":\"Antony Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T22:26:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\\\/#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\":\"Antony Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor\"}]},{\"@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":"Antony Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor - 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\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Antony Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor","og_description":"11. In a decision notice dated 24 July 2025. the Commissioner concluded that the BBC was entitled to rely on sections 38(1)(b) and 40(2) or 42 to withhold information. The Commissioner held that the BBC had breached section 17(3) FOIA. No steps were required. Section 38 \u2013 health and safety 12. The Commissioner found that there was a causal link...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/","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":"12 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/","name":"Antony Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T22:26:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/antony-williams-v-the-information-commissioner-anor-3\/#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":"Antony Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor"}]},{"@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\/562925","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=562925"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=562925"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=562925"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=562925"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=562925"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=562925"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=562925"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=562925"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}