{"id":590942,"date":"2026-04-18T02:02:57","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T00:02:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-anthony-pearce\/"},"modified":"2026-04-18T02:02:57","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T00:02:57","slug":"r-v-anthony-pearce","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-anthony-pearce\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Anthony Pearce"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

(As Approved) 1. MRS JUSTICE JEFFORD: The applicant stood trial at Newport Crown Court from 27 February to 2 March 2023. He was charged on count 1 with aggravated vehicle taking, to which he had pleaded guilty before trial. He was convicted on 2 March 2023, following the trial, on two further counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (counts 1 and 5), the injured persons being Robert Gray and Susan Hill who were partners, and one count of dangerous driving (count6). He was acquitted of the offence of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. The applicant now renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction on counts 4, 5 and 6, leave having been refused by the single judge. The facts 2. The prosecution case was as follows. On 28 June 2022 the applicant and his co-accused, Nicola Foley, gained entry to a house at 26 Glandovey Grove in Rumney, the home of Susan Hill and Robert Gray. They stole from the kitchen the keys to a black BMW registration number NL62 XPJ. The applicant then used the keys to start the vehicle and started to drive away with the co-accused in the passenger seat. Mr\u00a0Gray was mowing the lawn and heard the car starting. His evidence at trial was that he saw the car conducting a three-point turn. Ms\u00a0Hill was working in a hairdressing salon in an annex to the house and also heard the noise of the car starting. She was the last of them to have used the car and had parked it and locked it as normal. Mr\u00a0Gray asked her who was moving the car. They both then ran out to attempt to stop the car being taken. 3. Mr\u00a0Gray said that MsHill got there first. He saw the driver's door was open and he saw her holding onto the car by the pillar and door. The car turned round and accelerated causing Ms Hill to fall to the ground. Mr\u00a0Gray then grabbed the car and tried to get the key out. The applicant accelerated. Mr\u00a0Gray was running with one foot in the car and, as he put it, the next thing he knew he was up in the air. Mr\u00a0Gray's evidence was that the driver was swerving from side to side to get him off. The car hit a wall and also appeared to hit something else. There were indeed parked cars around. 4. Mr\u00a0Gray was knocked unconscious and suffered a concussion and a large number of bruises, grazes and cuts over his body. He required hospital treatment for abrasions to his shoulder, chest, back, side, buttock and thigh and cuts to both of his shins. There were also abrasions to both of his calves and his ankles. 5. The applicant and his co-defendant drove off and left the car less than a mile away in the car park of the Fox and Hounds pub. It was found with significant damage to the front offside of the vehicle. 6. The applicant and Nicola Foley were identified as suspects, arrested and interviewed on 21 July 2022. The applicant answered no comment to all questions put to him. 7. The prosecution case in respect of counts 4 and 5 was that the applicant was aware of both Ms\u00a0Hill and then Mr\u00a0Gray holding onto the car and yet he drove the car to dislodge them. The prosecution case was that those acts in effect applied unlawful force to each of the complainants which resulted in them falling and resulted in them both being injured. The prosecution case in respect of count6 was that the applicant deliberately drove dangerously to shake off the owners of the car and to get away also causing damage to the vehicle in the process. 8. In his Defence Statement, undated but uploaded to the DCS on 16 December 2022, the applicant's case was that he and Nicola Foley came across the BMW with its driver's side door open. They noticed the keys on the dashboard. Foley looked in the glove compartment for identification of the owners so that they could inform them and return the keys. The applicant got in on the driver's side to help look in the glove compartment. 9. Robert Gray (the owner) then came out of his property and was running through the front garden shouting. He opened the driver's side door and punched the applicant in the face. Mr\u00a0Gray then stepped back from the vehicle. The applicant was scared, so decided to shut the door and drive off. He said that he felt he had no other alternative. He drove for about three minutes and then abandoned the car in the car park of the pub. He said that at no point did Susan Hill come near the vehicle and at no point was he aware that either Ms\u00a0Hill or Mr\u00a0Gray was hanging onto the vehicle. 10. The applicant said that he then returned to his flat where he was visited by a friend, Lee Wilson. While he was there Mr\u00a0Wilson received a call from Mr\u00a0Gray asking where Mr\u00a0Wilson's friend (that is the applicant) was because he had just burgled Mr\u00a0Gray's house taking his car and "run me and my missus over". The applicant spoke to Mr\u00a0Gray, apologised and said he did not know what had happened but "you left me with no choice because you punched me so I drove off." In a subsequent addendum to the Defence Statement, unsigned but dated 5 February 2023, the applicant said that,in the course of this conversation, Mr\u00a0Gray acknowledged that he had thrown a punch. The trial 11. Mr\u00a0Gray and Ms\u00a0Hill both gave evidence at trial which we have already referred to. A neighbour, Rhiannon Spiers, who was in the salon annex with Ms Hill, also gave evidence. Her evidence was consistent with theirs and she said that she did not see Mr\u00a0Grey throw a punch. 12. Mr\u00a0Gray and Ms\u00a0Hill were cross-examined and the applicant's case was put to them fully, including the suggestion that the car had been damaged before the incident and that Mr\u00a0Gray had thrown a punch. This was denied.The applicant's case as to the phone call with Mr\u00a0Wilson was also put to Mr\u00a0Gray and we shall come to that in due course. 13. The applicant gave evidence. His account was in essence consistent with his Defence Statement, although he now said that Ms\u00a0Hill had opened the door to the car. After he was punched he said he drove off because his instinct was to protect himself. The grounds of appeal 14. An application for leave to appeal against conviction was first made with Advice and Grounds of Appeal formulated by counsel. The sole ground relied upon in that Advice and Grounds of Appeal formulated by counsel was the failure of the Recorder to give a direction on duress. 15. It is for the defence to raise this defence and the judge does not have to direct the jury on this defence if a jury properly directed could not conclude that the defence of duress was available. The elements of this defence are that the defendant reasonably believes that threats of serious injury have been made against him; that those threats would be carried out and he had no other reasonable avenue of escape from those threats; that the threat or belief in the threat directly caused the commission of the offence; and that a sober person of reasonable firmness could have been driven to act the way the defendant did. To convict the jury must be sure that one or more of those matters is not the case or not true. 16. The issue of duress was not mentioned by the defence until the consideration of legal directions to the jury. It arose out of the Recorder's consideration and discussion with counsel as to whether he should give a direction on self-defence in circumstances in which the applicant had said in evidence that he was defending himself. It was agreed that the applicant's case did not fall within any definition of self-defence. Counsel submitted on his behalf that the applicant's case was more in line with one of duress. 17. In the course of the directions that he gave to the jury, the Recorder said that the applicant's case was that he acted in a panic after he was punched. The matter was then raised with the Recorder again after he had addressed the jury and it was submitted that a more specific direction on duress was required. The Recorder said that what he had said to the jury about acting in a panic was not part of his directions on the law but his summary of the applicant's case. He did not consider that a duress defence could arise because on the applicant's own case there were alternative courses of action open to him. He gave the example of locking the car door, which on the applicant's case he had closed. 18. In our judgment there is no realistic prospect of success on any appeal on the basis that the jury ought to have been directed on the defence of duress. No jury properly directed could have thought that it was the case, or might be the case, that the only option left to the defendant was to drive off with Mr\u00a0Gray hanging on to the door of the car, drive for some distance and swerve to dislodge him. The conviction makes it plain that that was what the jury accepted had happened. Whether Mr\u00a0Gray had punched the applicant or not is immaterial to that. 19. Following the making of the application for leave on the basis of the Grounds formulated by counsel, the applicant submitted his own Form NG (Easy Read) to appeal against conviction. He has followed that with a series of letters to the Registrar which either expand upon the grounds he has put forward or add new ones. He has clarified that he relies on all grounds, both those of his own expression and counsel's. 20. We have considered the Form NG (Easy Read) and all of the subsequent correspondence. The points the applicant raises, in addition to the issue of the defence of duress, range far and wide but we consider that the key points are as follows. 21. First, the witness evidence. The applicant submits that the witnesses gave false accounts. This is a general complaint against all witnesses, the applicant also contending that there are obvious discrepancies in witness evidence and that witnesses have been proven to have committed perjury. The veracity of the evidence of witnesses is a matter that could have been and was the subject of cross-examination. Discrepancies are matters for the jury to consider in their assessment of the evidence. There is no evidence of perjury. In this case the jury clearly reached a decision as to who was telling the truth and rejected the applicant's version of events. The mere assertion by the applicant that witnesses did not tell the truth is not a ground of appeal. 22. The applicant places some particular reliance on the evidence relating to Lee Wilson and the telephone conversation that was referred to in the applicant's defence statement. In his evidence Mr\u00a0Gray accepted that there was a call to his phone but said that he could not remember anything about it because he was on morphine. He had subsequently been told about the call. He said he did not have Lee Wilson's number and he had not known who the applicant was before that day. That evidence contradicted the version of events in the Defence Statement. Ms\u00a0Hill said that she answered Mr\u00a0Gray's phone for him in the hospital because he was on strong painkillers. There had been lots of calls from people asking after him and one was from someone who asked to speak to Robert but that caller did not make any sense. Her evidence was that Mr\u00a0Gray did not make any calls himself. 23. The applicant also asserts that Mr\u00a0Gray confirmed that his car keys were returned to him by Lee Wilson on the day of the incident. This was not put to Mr\u00a0Gray and there is no other evidence to support this assertion. 24. The evidence about the phone call which was before the jury was part of the evidence as a whole. 25. The applicant complains that the judge did not make applications for either Mr\u00a0Wilson or another potential witness, Shane Laughlin, to give evidence. That is of course not a matter for the judge. The defence could have called them to give evidence if they had any relevant evidence to give but did not. In any event neither was said to be present at the time of the incident. So far as Mr\u00a0Wilson is concerned, we assume that the applicant considers that his evidence would support what he says about the phone call but although there is an application to adduce further evidence of Mr\u00a0Wilson, there is no statement from Mr\u00a0Wilson to that effect. 26. The applicant also complains that phone records were not obtained but that would have taken matters no further. As it stands, the jury had the evidence of Mr\u00a0Gray and the applicant in relation to the phone call and no further evidence was called in relation to Mr\u00a0Wilson. 27. In relation to Mr\u00a0Laughlin the applicant has variously said that he was untraceable and that he had been intimidated. There is no evidence to support either assertion. It is in any case unclear what material evidence the applicant contends that Mr\u00a0Laughlin could have given. As we will come to, he makes an application to adduce fresh evidence and in relation to Mr\u00a0Laughlin says: "Later same night involved in accident, named car". Taking all those matters into account, it is quite clear to us that they disclose no arguable ground of appeal. 28. A further ground is late disclosure. To the extent that there was any late disclosure it is clear, first, that the defence had no difficulty in dealing with anything that was disclosed. Anything that was disclosed late was not, in any case, material to the outcome of the trial. The applicant's first complaint appears to relate to footage of the damage to the bodywork of the car which was only provided at the start of the trial. The footage was not played to the jury but a still image of the damage was put before them. The video was in no way material to the central issue of the circumstances in which the car was taken and it was properly agreed between the prosecution and the defence that only a still needed to be shown to the jury. 29. The applicant also makes reference to body-worn video footage from a police officer which he says shows that all witnesses knew him before the incident. Whether or not the video shows that, it is not relevant other than to a peripheral issue as to whether Mr\u00a0Gray knew the applicant. 30. The applicant also submits that the prosecution expressed exaggerated opinions to the court. The applicant in this respect misunderstands the role of the prosecution which is to make submissions to the court. The applicant may not have agreed with the prosecution's submissions but that did not undermine the fairness of his trial. A particular aspect of this complaint is the applicant's assertion that the prosecution said that the injuries suffered by Mr\u00a0Gray made out the offence. But the applicant says the injuries did not exist. He says that on the evidence there was no brain injury and there were no photographs of the injuries. 31. The extent of Mr\u00a0Gray's injuries were the subject matter of agreed facts and in those circumstances no further photographs were put before the jury. That does not mean the injuries did not exist. It was agreed that they did exist. The applicant's complaint appears, in fact, to relate to the prosecution's submissions on the categorisation of the offence for the purposes of sentencing. That is a matter for the judge at that stage of the proceedings and any submission made in that respect is irrelevant to conviction. Representation 32. The applicant also relies on alleged inadequate representation. There are no specific examples which he can rely on, only his view that his own counsel was more interested in seeing him convicted than acquitted and a repetition of his complaints about late disclosure. We see no merit at all in these complaints and they do not give rise to any arguable ground of appeal. Fresh evidence 33. As we have mentioned the applicant has also sought leave to adduce further evidence. Such evidence can be received on appeal if it is necessary and expedient in the interests of justice to do so. 34. The applicant lists 11 individuals from whom he says evidence would be required and he has submitted forms in respect of each of them. In each instance the applicant has identified what matters he would want the witness to give evidence about but not what that evidence would be. 35. The witnesses listed include solicitors, counsel and the trial judge. There is of course no proposed evidence from any of these and the purpose of these applications is simply to raise the same points on appeal that we have already addressed. One witness is a police officer whom the applicant contends should answer questions about conspiracy and perjury of witnesses. All these are matters relating to the conduct of the trial and there is no basis on which any such evidence, even if obtained,would be admitted. 36. A further witness is a doctor and the subject of his evidence would relate to the same issue as to the extent of injuries which we have already addressed. A proposed witness is the police officer whose body-worn video footage the applicant submits is relevant. The remaining two witnesses are Mr\u00a0Laughlin and Mr\u00a0Wilson. 37. We have already addressed the evidence the applicant seeks to rely on. We do not repeat what we have said other than to observe that all this purported evidence is entirely peripheral to the key issues in this trial which were what happened at the time the vehicle was taken. In short, there is no basis on which evidence from any of these persons (which has not been identified) would be necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. 38. Accordingly we see no basis on which the proposed appeal has any real prospects of success and we refuse leave to appeal. 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":"

(As Approved) 1. MRS JUSTICE JEFFORD: The applicant stood trial at Newport Crown Court from 27 February to 2 March 2023. He was charged on count 1 with aggravated vehicle taking, to which he had pleaded guilty before trial. He was convicted on 2 March 2023, following the trial, on two further counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (counts…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8677],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,7875,8396,7622,19390],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-590942","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-8677","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-defence","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-wilson","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Anthony Pearce - 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-anthony-pearce\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Anthony Pearce\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"(As Approved) 1. MRS JUSTICE JEFFORD: The applicant stood trial at Newport Crown Court from 27 February to 2 March 2023. He was charged on count 1 with aggravated vehicle taking, to which he had pleaded guilty before trial. He was convicted on 2 March 2023, following the trial, on two further counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (counts...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-anthony-pearce\/\" \/>\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=\"16 \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-anthony-pearce\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-anthony-pearce\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Anthony Pearce - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-18T00:02:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-anthony-pearce\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-anthony-pearce\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-anthony-pearce\\\/#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 Anthony Pearce\"}]},{\"@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 Anthony Pearce - 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-anthony-pearce\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Anthony Pearce","og_description":"(As Approved) 1. MRS JUSTICE JEFFORD: The applicant stood trial at Newport Crown Court from 27 February to 2 March 2023. He was charged on count 1 with aggravated vehicle taking, to which he had pleaded guilty before trial. He was convicted on 2 March 2023, following the trial, on two further counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (counts...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-anthony-pearce\/","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":"16 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-anthony-pearce\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-anthony-pearce\/","name":"R v Anthony Pearce - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-18T00:02:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-anthony-pearce\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-anthony-pearce\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-anthony-pearce\/#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 Anthony Pearce"}]},{"@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\/590942","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=590942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=590942"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=590942"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=590942"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=590942"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=590942"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=590942"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=590942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}