{"id":579089,"date":"2026-04-16T18:14:14","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T16:14:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\/"},"modified":"2026-04-16T18:14:14","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T16:14:14","slug":"r-v-asfan-ber-mirza","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Asfan Ber Mirza"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

MR JUSTICE BRYAN: 1. On 25 August 2023, in the Crown Court at Leicester (Mr Recorder Richard Davis), the applicant was convicted of stalking (without violence), contrary to section 2A Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He was acquitted of stalking with violence, contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On the same date (before the same Court), he was sentenced to 6 months\u2019 imprisonment. The Court also made a restraining Order for 10 years. 2. The applicant, who is a litigant in person, renews his application for an extension of time (of 171 days) in respect of conviction, for leave to appeal against conviction and representation order following a refusal by the Single Judge (Rt. Hon. Sir Gary Hickinbottom). 3. Turning to the facts of the alleged offending. The complainant in this case is Mr Abdulrehman Ussenbai. On 14 October 2022, police attended the complainant\u2019s home address on Taurus Close, Leicester, following his complaint that he was being stalked by a male. 4. The prosecution case was that during the period 14 to 18 October 2022, the applicant had contacted or attempted to contact the complainant on multiple occasions and which he knew or ought to have known amounted to harassment\/stalking. 5. To prove the case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of the complainant (Mr Abdulrehman Ussenbai) – His evidence was that he knows the male complained of as \u201cAsfan Mirza\u201d because the male\u2019s father\u2019s shop (MS Discounts) is opposite to theirs. The male has black hair, normal Indian skin and he always wears a cap. They first met in 2016 when they were purchasing their shop. It was around 8:00 am on 14 October 2022, the complainant went out onto his balcony and saw the male was standing at their door. He (the male) had a hoodie over his head but nothing over his face. He was there for 10-15 minutes. He asked if the complainant had stolen his car and said that he had \u00a310,000 in the car. He made a demand for the money. The complainant said that he made no reply. The male then started swearing, texting and making calls to the complainant\u2019s mobile and continued to make demands for the money. He also said \u201cI will climb and then you won\u2019t have any space to run away\u201d. The complainant blocked the caller\u2019s number. 6. On 18 October 2022, his phone rang again from an unknown number. His son answered it and then passed it to the complainant\u2019s wife. The caller again said some swear words and made threats. The complainant attended an identification parade. 7. The police also relied upon the evidence of Rizwana Ussenbai. Her evidence was that on 14 October 2022, she saw the male outside her door. It was Asfan Mirza. He had a black hoodie and black joggers on. She could see his face. She recognised him as the son of the person who owns MS Discounts shop. He demanded money and made threats to her husband. Her husband was very scared. On 18 October 2022, there were further calls. When she gave her statement, she did not remember the date but did so now. 8. Other evidence relied upon by the prosecution included that of an Azra Esmail who gave evidence of a call being received by the complainant and PC Joshua Marshall, whose evidence was that he attended at the complainant\u2019s address on 14 October 2022, around midday, and saw the complainant in a panicked and emotional state. The complainant identified the male complained of as \u201cAsfan Mirza\u201d. Whilst in attendance, the complainant received a telephone call from a private number. The caller made a threat. The officer tried to speak with the caller but the caller refused to provide his name. 9. There was also expert evidence in relation to the cellular phone data and records linking the applicant to the area and calls made to the complainant. 10. The defence case was denial. In police interview, the applicant provided a prepared statement stating that he had loaned his phone during this period to a Naeem Gul. He denied using his phone. The applicant represented himself at trial and gave evidence having dispensed with his counsel on the first day of the trial. However he did have the benefit of the court-appointed advocate for the purposes of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses (the complainant and his wife). The applicant made admissions in relation to the call taken by PC Marshall, and he said that he had lied in the police interview about his phone as that was the safest way of telling the police about Naeem Gul. The complainant had been unable to positively identify the applicant in the identification evidence. The issue for the jury was whether they could be sure that the applicant had committed the stalking, as alleged. 11. The applicant\u2019s grounds of appeal, which were drafted by the applicant himself, are as follows:- (1) An issue in relation to the cellular evidence – it was alleged that the \u201cJudge allowed a malicious phone call of the 18 October 2022 to emergency service to be used in court\u201d. (2) An issue in relation to the evidence of a prosecution witness – the \u201cJudge allowed PC Joshua Marshall to lie in court about his attendance on 14 October 2022 at a house on Taurus Close\u201d. (3) An issue in relation to the examination of a witness – in that \u201cNaeem Gull\u2019s statement was not questioned by the prosecutor following a statement of involvement\u201d. (4) A dispute about the complainant\u2019s evidence – it was alleged that \u201cAbdul passed the defendant\u2019s phone number to Gul for death threats\u201d. (5) An issue regarding evidence allowed by Judge – the \u201cJudge did not accept that the house (21 Taurus Close) to be the defendant\u2019s family address belonging to Reshma, Rashid, Irfan\u201d. (6) A witness not called by the prosecution \u2013 \u201cProsecutor refused PC Joshua Marshall colleague PC Stott to be a witness of police exposure\u201d. (7) \u201cThe claimed victim of malicious phone call to emergency service are [illegible word] and have lack of understanding in United Kingdom\u201d. (8) There was said to be an issue in relation to the guilty verdict on the alternative charge. (9) There was said to be an issue in relation to the court appointed counsel in that they left court before the verdict. (10) It was stated that, \u201cPC Joshua Marshall claims he suffer from Dyslexia on (MSN) email was forwarded to Chief Rob Mason\u201d. (The infelicities in the grounds of appeal in terms of grammar are in the original.) 12. Like the single judge before us, and having considered the grounds and the documentation before us, we are satisfied that there are no arguable grounds for an appeal against conviction, and we too consider that your grounds are wholly without merit. 13. We gratefully adopt the reasons given by the single judge, the Right Honourable Sir Gary Hickinbottom), with which we respectfully agree:- \u201cI have considered the papers in your case and your grounds of appeal. You were charged with a single count of stalking Abdul Ussenbai with fear of violence. You dispensed with your legal team on the first day of the trial, and continued unrepresented. You were found guilty of stalking simpliciter (i.e. without the relevant element of fear of violence having been proved). That was an appropriate and lawful alternative verdict. You seek to appeal on ten grounds. You have drafted these grounds. I should say at the outset that, whilst I am sensitive to the challenges facing those who represent themselves in this court, some of your grounds are difficult to understand and lack coherence; whilst others are no more than a re-run of the evidence and a disagreement with the findings of the jury on the evidence before them. I deal with the grounds below, in turn. Ground 1: \u2018Judge allowed a malicious phone call on 18-10-2022 to Emergency Service to be used in court. Cell site location is relevant.\u2019 Telephone logs and cell site data from the relevant phone were part of the evidence relied on by the prosecution. It was the prosecution case that you made these calls, resulting in the complainant making an emergency call to the police because he was in fear. The Judge did not arguably err in any respect in relation to this evidence. Ground 2: \u2018Judge allowed PC Joshua Marshall to lie in court about his attendance on the 14-10-2022 at a house on Taurus Close.\u2019 PC Marshall gave evidence, and you cross-examined him. His credibility was for the jury to consider. It is not legitimate ground of appeal that the jury disagreed with your view of the evidence. Ground 3: \u2018Nayeem Gull\u2019s statement was not questioned by the prosecutor following a statement of involvement.\u2019 Nayeem Gull gave evidence during the trial, the Crown asked questions about the stalking (including dates) and you were given an opportunity to cross-examine, which you did not take. Again, the Crown did not err in how they proceeded. Ground 4: \u2018Abdul passed Defendant phone number to Gul for death threats.\u2019 This was a matter in issue, upon which Abdul Ussenbai was cross-examined and you gave evidence. Ground 5: \u2018Judge did not accept house 21 Taurus Close to be the defendant family address belonging to Reshma, Rashid, Irfhan.\u2019 This was not a matter for the Judge: it was a factual matter for the jury. Ground 6: \u2018Prosecutor refused PC Joshua Marshall\u2019s colleague PC Stott to be a witness of Police exposure.\u2019 PC Scott was not a witness whom you required to attend trial. Ground 7: \u2018The claimed victim of malicious phone call to emergency service are [illegible word] and have lack of understanding in United Kingdom.\u2019 I do not understand this – nor, apparently, does the Crown – but it does not appear to raise any possible ground of appeal. Ground 8: \u2018A jury stumble into a guilty plea following a second verdict they did not expect due to the house being a family address.\u2019 Following an appropriate direction from the Judge, you were found not guilty of stalking with fear of violence contrary to section 4A of the Harassment Act 1997, but guilty of stalking simpliciter under section 2A. That alternative verdict is available under section 6 of the Act. Ground 9: \u2018Defendant counsel Natalie Goffe left the court room before a verdict and no-one was to challenge the change of legal advisor decision.\u2019 Ms Goffe of the Public Defender Service was appointed for the limited purpose of cross-examining the complainant and his wife following your dispensing with your legal team and the Judge making an order under section 36 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 prohibiting you from cross-examining them. After they had given evidence, you were given another opportunity of having a legal representative for the rest of the trial, which you declined. That explains why Ms Goffe was not present at the verdict, when you remained unrepresented: she had completed her job. Ground 10: \u2018PC Joshua Marshall claims he suffers from Dyslexia on (MSN) email was forwarded to Chief Rob Mason.\u2019 I do not understand this – nor, apparently, does the Crown – but it does not appear to raise any possible ground of appeal. In addition to these grounds: (i) You seek to call Irfhan Pathan to give evidence on your behalf; but you did not seek to call him at your trial and do not suggest any evidence he might give, let alone evidence that might assist your appeal. (ii) I have considered all the papers in your case, including the summing up – which was full and fair. The papers do not suggest that you have any ground of appeal with any more merit than those you have put forward as set out above; or that the trial process was other than entirely fair; or that your conviction is arguably unsafe. Your grounds are not only unarguable, they are wholly without merit. Your application for leave to appeal is late. However, given my views on the merits of your grounds of appeal, it is unnecessary for me to consider reasons for the delay because I would refuse your application for an extension on the basis of lack of substantive merits in any event. I simply refuse all your applications.\u201d 14. We accordingly dismiss the application for an extension of time and application to seek leave to appeal against the stalking conviction. 15. As the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division observed in R v Gray & Ors [2014] EWCA Crim 2372: \u201c\u2026 the only means the court has of discouraging unmeritorious applications which waste precious time and resources is by using the powers given to us by Parliament in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.\u201d We consider this is just such a case. 16. The applicant has already served his sentence in relation to this matter, and we consider that it is just, reasonable and appropriate to make, and do make, an order under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for the applicant to pay the reasonable cost of the transcript in this case in a sum of \u00a3151.25, which such sum is to be paid within 28 days.<\/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 BRYAN: 1. On 25 August 2023, in the Crown Court at Leicester (Mr Recorder Richard Davis), the applicant was convicted of stalking (without violence), contrary to section 2A Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He was acquitted of stalking with violence, contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On the same date (before the same…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,8239,7622,11555,7621],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-579089","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-complainant","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-ground","kji_keyword-judge","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Asfan Ber Mirza - 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-asfan-ber-mirza\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Asfan Ber Mirza\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MR JUSTICE BRYAN: 1. On 25 August 2023, in the Crown Court at Leicester (Mr Recorder Richard Davis), the applicant was convicted of stalking (without violence), contrary to section 2A Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He was acquitted of stalking with violence, contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On the same date (before the same...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\/\" \/>\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=\"11 \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-asfan-ber-mirza\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Asfan Ber Mirza - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-16T16:14:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\\\/#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 Asfan Ber Mirza\"}]},{\"@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 Asfan Ber Mirza - 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-asfan-ber-mirza\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Asfan Ber Mirza","og_description":"MR JUSTICE BRYAN: 1. On 25 August 2023, in the Crown Court at Leicester (Mr Recorder Richard Davis), the applicant was convicted of stalking (without violence), contrary to section 2A Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He was acquitted of stalking with violence, contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On the same date (before the same...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\/","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":"11 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\/","name":"R v Asfan Ber Mirza - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-16T16:14:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-asfan-ber-mirza\/#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 Asfan Ber Mirza"}]},{"@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\/579089","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=579089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=579089"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=579089"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=579089"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=579089"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=579089"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=579089"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=579089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}