{"id":564161,"date":"2026-04-15T03:31:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T01:31:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T03:31:09","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T01:31:09","slug":"r-v-nathaniel-armani","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Nathaniel Armani"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE: 1 On 14\u00a0October\u00a02023 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Cardiff Magistrates' Court under case 62CL0807123 to\u00a0one offence of\u00a0acquiring, using or possessing criminal property, contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On 14 December 2023 the applicant pleaded guilty in the same court under case 62CL0936323 to\u00a0one offence of\u00a0concealing, disguising, converting or transferring criminal property, contrary to\u00a0section\u00a0327 of\u00a0the 2002 Act, a further offence of\u00a0acquiring, using or possessing criminal property, contrary to\u00a0section\u00a0329, and two offences of\u00a0being concerned in the supply of\u00a0a\u00a0controlled drug, one relating to cocaine and the other to cannabis. 2 On 2\u00a0May\u00a02025 in the Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil, His Honour Judge Jenkins sentenced the applicant to\u00a0imprisonment for a total term of\u00a015\u00a0years, made up as follows: 13\u00a0years 6 months' imprisonment for being concerned in the supply of\u00a0cocaine; a\u00a0concurrent term of\u00a08 years for being concerned in the supply of\u00a0cannabis; concurrent terms of\u00a03 years for offences under section\u00a0327 and 329\u00a0of\u00a0the 2002 Act, and a consecutive term of\u00a018\u00a0months for the s.329 offence under case 62CL0807123. The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge. 3 The facts may be summarised briefly. Case reference 62CL0807123 4 At about 4.15 p.m. on 12\u00a0October\u00a02023 police officers saw the applicant travelling southbound on the M6\u00a0in an Audi A8 car. He stopped at Killington Lake services, where the officers spoke to\u00a0him. He had two driving licences in different names in the name of\u00a0Murat Tasci and Murta Tasci. The applicant told the officers that he had travelled to\u00a0Scotland with a\u00a0friend the previous day, which checks revealed to be untrue. When the police searched the car, they found a large green freezer bag in the front passenger footwell which contained \u00a3198,785 in Scottish and Bank of England notes. The applicant was also carrying \u00a31,150 in cash. Case reference 62CL0936323 5 Following his arrest, the applicant's mobile telephone was seized and forensically examined. Messages showed that over a\u00a0two-year period he was involved in the supply of\u00a0cocaine and cannabis and was a\u00a0trusted courier of\u00a0drugs and cash for an organised crime group. The applicant couriered 10\u00a0kilograms of\u00a0cocaine to\u00a0an Albanian customer in London. He sent to the client a\u00a0photograph showing that cocaine in two carrier bags. He also supplied a further kilogram of\u00a0cocaine on 28\u00a0July\u00a02023. 6 The applicant was also concerned in the supply of between 603 and 608 kilograms of\u00a0cannabis. The wholesale value of the cannabis was between \u00a31.93\u00a0million and \u00a32.25\u00a0million. The wholesale value of the 11\u00a0kilograms of\u00a0cocaine he supplied was between \u00a3253,000 and \u00a3352,000. There was also up to 116 kilograms of unspecified drugs. The appellant was involved in collecting between \u00a31.6\u00a0million and \u00a31.63\u00a0million in cash. The applicant hired cars to transport the drugs and money. Between\u00a0November\u00a02002 and September\u00a02023 he hired at least 15 cars for this purpose. 7 The applicant was a\u00a0trusted courier of\u00a0drugs and cash on behalf of\u00a0the user of\u00a0a\u00a0mobile telephone ending 2326. The persons for whom he worked had an extensive network of\u00a0customers throughout England, Wales and Scotland. The drugs expert described the applicant's journeys as\u00a0prolific. The applicant was likely to have been paid a\u00a0fee for each trip, earning a significant profit. 8 In his two bases of\u00a0plea the applicant accepted that he had worked as\u00a0a\u00a0courier, "for a\u00a0prolonged period of\u00a0time, mainly transporting cannabis and cash", but also 11 kilograms of\u00a0cocaine, as\u00a0agreed with the prosecution. 9 The applicant had three convictions for three offences, none of\u00a0which were relevant to\u00a0the sentencing for the index offences. No pre-sentence report was prepared. We consider that no such report was necessary for the hearing in the Crown Court or for the purposes of\u00a0this application. 10 We have considered a\u00a0report by Dr\u00a0Matthew King, a\u00a0consultant forensic psychiatrist. He concluded that the applicant meets seven criteria for a diagnosis of\u00a0a moderate gambling disorder in the upper range. We have also read a\u00a0letter from the applicant's solicitor and a\u00a0prison progress report. 11 In his sentencing remarks the judge said that the applicant had pleaded guilty on the basis that the cannabis offence and the related offences under section 327 and 329 took place between November 2021 and October 2023. He had been working as\u00a0a\u00a0courier for a\u00a0large-scale organised crime group, operating the length and breadth of\u00a0the country. He was a\u00a0prolific drug dealer, acting on a\u00a0national scale. The Judge said that the applicant had played a\u00a0significant role in the cocaine offence and the amount fell within category\u00a01\u00a0harm. The category range was between 9 and 12\u00a0years, with a\u00a0starting point of\u00a010\u00a0years for an indicative amount of\u00a05\u00a0kilograms. Here, the amount was more than double that figure. In relation to the cannabis offence, the applicant's role had again been significant and the category\u00a01 range was 5 to\u00a07 years, with a\u00a0starting point of\u00a05\u00a0years 6\u00a0months for an indicative amount of\u00a0200\u00a0kilograms, whereas the amount involved was far greater. 12 The Judge said that he very much took into account the mitigating factors, including the psychiatric report, and had the totality principle well in mind. He said that for the cocaine offence, the sentence after trial would have been 18\u00a0years, which he reduced by a\u00a0credit of 25\u00a0per\u00a0cent for the appellant's guilty plea. For the class\u00a0B\u00a0drugs, the sentence after a\u00a0trial would have been 12\u00a0years, reduced to\u00a08\u00a0years, and was imposed to\u00a0run concurrently. 13 For the related offences under the 2002 Act, the sentence after trial was 4\u00a0years, reduced to\u00a03\u00a0years for plea. In relation to the offence committed under section\u00a0329 on 12\u00a0October\u00a02023, the Judge said the sentence after trial would have been 2\u00a0years, which he reduced to\u00a018\u00a0months, to\u00a0run consecutively to the sentence of\u00a013\u00a0years 6\u00a0months for the cocaine offence. 14 On behalf of\u00a0the applicant Mr McAlinden submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive for the following reasons: 1. The starting point of\u00a018\u00a0years was too high; 2.The applicant was entitled to\u00a033\u00a0per\u00a0cent credit for his pleas in the magistrates' court; 3. Greater weight should have been given to the mitigating factors, including the applicant's lack of\u00a0relevant previous convictions and his diagnosis of a\u00a0gambling disorder; 4. The sentences should have all been ordered to\u00a0run concurrently. 15 Refusing leave, the single judge said this: "1. The applicant had a\u00a0trusted and significant role both in transferring drugs money and in the supply of cocaine (not less than 11\u00a0kilograms) and cannabis (not less than 600\u00a0kilograms). He was closely involved with an organised crime group for these purposes and his involvement was over a\u00a0lengthy period. 2. I can see no error at all in the Judge's categorisation for sentencing guideline purposes (which of course had to be adapted to\u00a0the sheer quantities of\u00a0drugs and cash involved). Necessarily, the sentence had to\u00a0respect principles of\u00a0totality (as\u00a0the Judge in terms acknowledged): but it also conversely had to\u00a0extend to\u00a0the totality of\u00a0the actual offending. The sentences were not required to be concurrent in this respect and ultimately, what matters now iswhether a\u00a0sentence of\u00a015\u00a0years was arguably excessive. 3. Given the quantities involved and the scale of\u00a0the operation in which the applicant had played his part, I\u00a0can see no arguable error in the starting figures taken and such mitigation as there was,with the basis of\u00a0plea, duly taken into account. 4. As\u00a0for credit for plea, it is true that the applicant pleaded guilty in the magistrates' court, but as\u00a0stated to\u00a0the judge by the prosecution, that was on the basis of\u00a0supply of 1\u00a0kilogram of\u00a0cocaine (the prosecution was then arguing for 36 kilograms). Following an adjourned Newton hearing, the applicant accepted involvement in the supply of\u00a011\u00a0kilograms of\u00a0cocaine, which the prosecution then accepted. A\u00a0discount of\u00a025\u00a0per cent to\u00a0reflect that scenario was a\u00a0proper one. 5. I,\u00a0therefore, refuse leave to appeal. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor excessive." 16 We entirely agree with the single\u00a0judge's reasons. 17 One of the applicant's main submissions is that it was not necessary or appropriate for the judge to\u00a0increase the starting point from 10\u00a0years to\u00a018\u00a0years to\u00a0reflect the quantity of\u00a0cocaine involved: 11\u00a0kilograms, as\u00a0compared with the indicative amount of 5\u00a0kilograms. The figure should have been 12 or 13 years, rather than 18. That submission in the written advice betrayed a\u00a0misunderstanding not only about what the judge did in this case, but also the totality principle. 18 In reality, the judge did not arrive at 18 years simply to\u00a0reflect the amount of\u00a0cocaine involved. First, that overall sentence included a consecutive sentence of\u00a018\u00a0months for the section\u00a0329 offence committed on 12\u00a0October\u00a02023. The applicant complains that the sentence should not have been made to\u00a0run consecutively. Second, if the sentence had been concurrent, that would have aggravated whatever sentence was appropriate for the cocaine offence. Third, looking at\u00a0the 2002 Act offences globally, the amount of money transported by the applicant would have been of\u00a0the order of\u00a0\u00a31.8\u00a0million rather than \u00a31.6\u00a0million. Bearing in mind the sustained nature of\u00a0that offending over a\u00a0long period of\u00a0time, an overall sentence of\u00a05\u00a0years before mitigation and credit for plea would have been well justified. 19 Fourth, the money laundering sentences, along with the concurrent sentence for the cannabis offence, required a\u00a0substantial uplift in whatever term was appropriate for the cocaine offence taken by itself. We note the Judge said that the sentence for the cannabis offence would have been 12\u00a0years, which he then reduced to\u00a08\u00a0years. No criticism is or could be made of\u00a0that sentence. Accordingly, even after applying the totality principle, the overall sentence proportionate to\u00a0the applicant's overall criminality would have been significantly in excess of\u00a020\u00a0years before allowing for mitigation and credit for plea. After allowing for those factors, a\u00a0sentence of 15\u00a0years for all of\u00a0the applicant's offending was justified. It was not manifestly excessive. 20 When the Judge said in relation to the cocaine offence that he thought the sentence after trial would have been 18\u00a0years, it is plain that he must have had in mind the uplift appropriate for the concurrent sentences he was just about to\u00a0impose in the next breath. Otherwise, the overall sentence would have been much greater than 15\u00a0years, once the necessary punishment for the additional offending was also taken into account. We doubt that the applicant or his counsel could have read the sentencing remarks of\u00a0the Judge in the way that the written advice set out. This application comes perilously close to meriting a\u00a0loss of\u00a0time order. 21 For these reasons the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. __________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE: 1 On 14 October 2023 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Cardiff Magistrates’ Court under case 62CL0807123 to one offence of acquiring, using or possessing criminal property, contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On 14 December 2023 the applicant pleaded guilty in the same court under case 62CL0936323 to one offence of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7875,8364,7621,8348,8347],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-564161","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-cocaine","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-years","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Nathaniel Armani - 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\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Nathaniel Armani\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE: 1 On 14 October 2023 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Cardiff Magistrates' Court under case 62CL0807123 to one offence of acquiring, using or possessing criminal property, contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On 14 December 2023 the applicant pleaded guilty in the same court under case 62CL0936323 to one offence of...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/\" \/>\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=\"9 \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\\\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Nathaniel Armani - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-15T01:31:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\\\/#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\":\"R v Nathaniel Armani\"}]},{\"@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":"R v Nathaniel Armani - 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\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Nathaniel Armani","og_description":"LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE: 1 On 14 October 2023 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Cardiff Magistrates' Court under case 62CL0807123 to one offence of acquiring, using or possessing criminal property, contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On 14 December 2023 the applicant pleaded guilty in the same court under case 62CL0936323 to one offence of...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/","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":"9 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/","name":"R v Nathaniel Armani - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-15T01:31:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathaniel-armani\/#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":"R v Nathaniel Armani"}]},{"@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\/564161","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=564161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=564161"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=564161"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=564161"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=564161"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=564161"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=564161"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=564161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}