{"id":606480,"date":"2026-04-19T14:47:50","date_gmt":"2026-04-19T12:47:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-art-anor\/"},"modified":"2026-04-19T14:47:50","modified_gmt":"2026-04-19T12:47:50","slug":"r-v-art-anor","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-art-anor\/","title":{"rendered":"R v ART & Anor"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

MRS JUSTICE FARBEY: 1 The provisions of\u00a0section\u00a045 of\u00a0the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 apply in this case. No matter relating to\u00a0either of\u00a0the applicants or the victim of\u00a0the offence shall, while they are under the age of 18, be included in any publication if it\u00a0is likely to\u00a0lead members to\u00a0identify that person as a\u00a0person concerned in the proceedings. 2 On 2\u00a0December\u00a02022 in the Crown Court at Norwich the applicant AJB (then aged 16) pleaded guilty upon re-arraignment to one offence of\u00a0conspiracy to\u00a0cause grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to\u00a0section\u00a01(1) of\u00a0the Criminal Law Act 1997. On 27\u00a0January\u00a02023 in the same court the applicant ART (then aged 17) pleaded guilty upon re-arraignment to\u00a0the same offence. On 5\u00a0October\u00a02023, before Her Honour Judge Robinson, ART was sentenced to 3\u00a0years, 9\u00a0months and AJB to\u00a04 years' detention in a\u00a0young offender institution. Appropriate ancillary orders were made. At\u00a0the date of the offence both applicants were aged 16. At\u00a0the date of\u00a0sentence they were both 17\u00a0years old. Their applications for leave to appeal against sentence have each been referred to the full court by\u00a0the Registrar on account of\u00a0their young age. Facts 3 We turn to\u00a0the facts. On 10\u00a0August\u00a02022 at around 7.20\u00a0p.m. V1 was confronted by\u00a0six males at her home address. The group comprised AJB, ART and four others, who were the applicant's co-accused. Two of\u00a0V1's sons, aged 8 and 5, were inside the property. Her eldest son V2, aged 15, was not at home. The group were aggressive and told V1 that they were looking for V2. One member of the group told V1: "We came here to warn V2 we are going to\u00a0kill him." The group then all began to say that they were going to\u00a0kill V2. They were aggressive to\u00a0V1, who feared they would push their way into the house. The males remained for 5 to\u00a010 minutes before leaving. V1\u00a0then called the police. Officers arrived at\u00a0the scene shortly afterwards. 4 All six males were found in a\u00a0nearby public park. Their mobile telephones were seized. Two machetes were recovered from different places along the park footpath. 5 AJB's fingerprints were on one of the machetes. ART, AJB and the four co-accused were associated with the \u201cNeno\u201d gang based in Nacton in East Ipswich. The motivation for wanting to\u00a0attack V2 related to rivalry with another gang, \u201cJ\u00a0Block\u201d, which operated in the area of Ipswich where V2\u00a0lived with his mother. 6 The mobile telephones of\u00a0AJB and another co-accused were examined. They revealed a\u00a0group conversation in which AJB\u00a0reported that he\u00a0thought rival gang members were on Nacton Road. He\u00a0asked the group if they had found out where V2\u00a0lived. AJB sent images of houses to\u00a0the group and a discussion followed as\u00a0to\u00a0which house belonged to\u00a0V2. The group discussed finding and attacking V2 with knives. Plans were made to\u00a0travel to\u00a0the address by\u00a0taxi. A co-accused's phone had an invoice for four machetes that were to be delivered to another member of the group, as well as screenshots of\u00a0the machetes. Following the offence, V2 and his family were forced to\u00a0move out of the area. Sentencing remarks 7 The judge sentenced all six members of\u00a0the group together. She rightly described the incident at V1's house as\u00a0a\u00a0very serious incident. She observed that V2 was vulnerable because of\u00a0his age. The group had planned to\u00a0use highly dangerous weapons and were intent on taking revenge on V2\u00a0for a trivial reason, relating to damage to a door at a\u00a0house with which one member of the group was associated. She said that the group was lucky that V2 was not at home; otherwise, they may have been facing a\u00a0murder charge. Although sentencing for a\u00a0conspiracy, the judge considered the Sentencing Guideline for the completed offence of\u00a0causing grievous bodily harm with intent. She was entitled to\u00a0do so. She concluded that the offence fell within the highest culpability category, i.e.\u00a0level A, under the guideline. 8 As\u00a0regards harm, the judge noted that the conspiracy did not result in any physical harm as\u00a0the intended stabbing did not take place. However, she was satisfied that the group intended to\u00a0cause very serious injury or death. The offence was one of category\u00a02\u00a0harm under the guideline. The judge was entitled to reach this conclusion on the basis of\u00a0the harm which the conspiracy was intended to\u00a0cause or might foreseeably have caused. 9 The conspiracy was therefore to be treated as a category\u00a02A\u00a0offence under the guideline with a\u00a0starting point of\u00a07\u00a0years' custody and a\u00a0category range of\u00a06\u00a0to\u00a010\u00a0years' custody for an\u00a0adult. It was an aggravating factor for all group members that the offence took place in a\u00a0residential street in daylight when other people were around. It\u00a0was a\u00a0further aggravating factor that the offence took place against what the judge described as\u00a0the backdrop of\u00a0tensions and tit for tat violence between opposing gangs. By\u00a0way of\u00a0mitigation the judge took into consideration that the applicants were aged only 16 at the time of the offence, had no previous convictions and were vulnerable young people "sucked into" gang violence. 10 In relation to AJB the judge observed that the phone messages showed that he\u00a0played an\u00a0active part throughout in plans to\u00a0carry a\u00a0large knife and attack V2. He had failed to\u00a0take responsibility for his offence. On the other hand, AJB\u00a0had plans to\u00a0apply for a\u00a0railway engineer apprenticeship. He had been working with the Youth Justice Service, with the support of\u00a0his family, to\u00a0distance himself from negative influences. 11 In relation to ART the judge noted that ART's phone messages stated that he\u00a0would stab V2\u00a0and that he wanted to\u00a0borrow a\u00a0balaclava. Footage from a police body-worn camera showed him wearing a dark mask. He was, however, less active in the conspiracy than others. He had accepted responsibility for what he\u00a0had done. He had been working with the Youth Justice Service to distance himself, and had distanced himself, from negative influences. 12 The judge applied the Overarching Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People (\u201cthe Overarching Guideline\u201d). She took into consideration that the court must have regard to\u00a0the principal aim of\u00a0the youth justice system, which is to prevent offending and to promote the welfare of\u00a0a child or young person. The approach to\u00a0sentencing should be individualistic and focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. She recognised that in determining a\u00a0child's culpability the emphasis must be on emotional and developmental age as much, if not more, than chronological age. She acknowledged that a custodial sentence for a\u00a0young person is a\u00a0last resort and that, if a custodial sentence is imposed, the court may think it appropriate to\u00a0apply a\u00a0sentence falling within the region of half to\u00a0two thirds of the adult sentence for those, like the applicants, aged 15\u00a0to\u00a017. 13 The judge concluded that the offence was so serious that an\u00a0adult would have received 8 years' imprisonment. Applying a\u00a0one-third reduction for the applicant's age and a 25\u00a0per\u00a0cent discount for their guilty pleas, she arrived at the sentences which we have mentioned already. We do not need to\u00a0set out the ways in which she sentenced the co-defendants. Submissions 14 On behalf of ART, Mr\u00a0Hughes submits that the sentence passed by\u00a0the judge was manifestly excessive. She had failed to\u00a0give sufficient weight to\u00a0ART's age, previous good character and progress towards rehabilitation since the date of the offence, such as\u00a0distancing himself from gang culture and securing an apprenticeship which his detention will bring to\u00a0an\u00a0end. She had failed to have proper regard to the detailed Pre-Sentence Report. She ought to have accepted the recommendation in that report for an\u00a0alternative to\u00a0detention, namely a\u00a0Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance (\u201cYRO with ISS\u201d). She had failed to\u00a0explain why she had rejected that alternative. She had failed properly to\u00a0apply the Overarching Guideline by\u00a0focusing on punishment when she ought to have focused on rehabilitation and reintegration. 15 On behalf of\u00a0AJB, Ms Roxburgh submits that the judge gave insufficient weight to\u00a0the principles in the Overarching Guideline. She did not apply her mind specifically to\u00a0the imposition of\u00a0a\u00a0YRO with ISS and had failed to\u00a0give reasons for concluding that such a\u00a0sentence would not be sufficient. She could usefully have addressed the elements of\u00a0ISS. The Pre-Sentence Report made plain that AJB\u00a0had rehabilitated himself through his engagement with the Youth Justice Service. He had detached himself from his negative peer group. He had a\u00a0career and a realistic plan to achieve it. The Pre-Sentence Report considered that detention would be harmful to\u00a0AJB's mental health and his employment prospects. Detention would increase – rather than reduce – the prospect of\u00a0recidivism. 16 On behalf of the respondent, Ms\u00a0Tucker, principally in writing, submits that the judge had the principles of\u00a0the Overarching Guideline at\u00a0the front of\u00a0her mind, as well as the relevant case law. She had considered the contents of\u00a0the reports. While she had not expressly spelt out in terms why the offence was so serious that she could not impose a YRO with ISS, she had clearly acknowledged that detention is a sentence of last resort for a child, but had concluded that, given the seriousness of the offence, only a\u00a0sentence of\u00a0detention could be justified for each of\u00a0the applicants. She had applied the relevant offence guideline and had made a proper deduction for age, as well as applying the appropriate discount for the guilty pleas. The sentences imposed on each applicant were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Discussion 17 The Overarching Guideline gives guidance about the imposition of\u00a0custodial sentences on children, emphasising the importance of\u00a0the assessment of the Pre-Sentence Report in the judge's determination of whether the custody threshold has been crossed: "6.44 In determining whether an offence has crossed the custody threshold, the court will need to assess the seriousness of the offence, in particular the level of harm that was caused, or was likely to have been caused, by the offence. The risk of serious harm in the future must also be assessed. The pre-sentence report will assess this criterion and must be considered before a custodial sentence is imposed. A custodial sentence is most likely to be unavoidable where it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. 6.45 Only if the court is satisfied that the offence crosses the custody threshold, and that no other sentence is appropriate, the court may, as a preliminary consideration, consult the equivalent adult guideline in order to decide upon the appropriate length of the sentence." 18 The guideline goes on to state: "6.46 When considering the relevant adult guideline, the court may feel it appropriate to apply a sentence broadly within the region of half to two thirds of the adult sentence for those aged 15 \u2013 17 […] This is only a rough guide and must not be applied mechanistically. In most cases when considering the appropriate reduction from the adult sentence the emotional and developmental age and maturity of the child or young person is of at least equal importance as their chronological age. This reduction should be applied before any reduction for a plea of guilty." 19 In her sentencing remarks the judge referred to\u00a0R\u00a0v\u00a0ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596, to\u00a0which we too have been referred. The court in that case emphasised, at paragraph\u00a082, that an "entirely different approach to sentence is required than that which courts routinely apply to adult offenders", and provided a summary of\u00a0the general principles. Among other things: "(5) The contents of\u00a0the Youth Justice Service pre-sentence report and any medical\/psychiatric\/psychological reports will be key. Courts should consider these reports, bearing in mind the general principles at section 1 of the overarching youth guideline, together with any youth-specific offence guideline, carefully working through each. (6) In general it will not be helpful to go straight to paragraph 6.46 of the overarching youth guideline without having first directed the court to general principles canvassed earlier in that guideline, as well as to any youth-specific guideline. The stepped approach in the overarching youth guideline and any youth-specific offence guideline should be followed. Working through the guideline(s) in this way will enable the court to arrive at the most appropriate sentence for the particular child or young person, bearing in mind their individual circumstances together with the dual aims of youth sentencing. (7) If the court considers that the offence or offence(s) is (are) so serious as to pass the custody threshold, the court must consider whether a YRO with ISS can be imposed instead. If it cannot, then the court must explain why." 20 In our judgment, the judge in the present case followed the approach in ZA. Her sentencing remarks show that she did not sentence the applicants as\u00a0mini-adults but had in mind the principles that must be adopted under the Overarching Guideline. Her sentencing remarks are structured and demonstrate that she considered each case before her on an\u00a0individual basis, albeit that there were certain factors that were relevant to\u00a0all the cases, such as\u00a0the seriousness of the offence. We find no material error in her approach. 21 The judge did not expressly refer to\u00a0paragraphs\u00a06.44 and 6.45 of\u00a0the Overarching Guideline. She was not required slavishly to cite large passages from the guideline, but to\u00a0indicate that she had considered and applied its substance. In our judgment, the judge's sentencing remarks read as\u00a0a\u00a0whole satisfy us that she did so. 22 The judge did not expressly say why she was rejecting a\u00a0YRO with ISS in favour of\u00a0detention. However, the judge considered the Pre-Sentence Reports for each applicant which made clear that there was a\u00a0significant risk of\u00a0serious harm in the future. It is plain from her sentencing remarks, read fairly and as\u00a0a\u00a0whole, that she regarded the offending as so serious that only a\u00a0sentence of\u00a0detention for each applicant was warranted. Neither of\u00a0the applicants can be in any realistic doubt as\u00a0to\u00a0why she did not impose any form of\u00a0community sentence, even a\u00a0stringent one. 23 By\u00a0their pleas to\u00a0the offence which they each entered on a\u00a0\u201cfull facts\u201d basis, the applicants have accepted that they conspired to\u00a0cause very serious violence. We have seen the images of the machetes found by\u00a0the police, as well as other vivid material that was before the judge. We agree with her that this was a\u00a0very serious incident, putting at risk the life of\u00a0a\u00a015-year-old boy in the context of\u00a0wider gang violence in the area. Age and good character do not in these circumstances mean that a\u00a0YRO with ISS ought to have been imposed. 24 In our judgment, the judge was entitled to\u00a0impose a\u00a0sentence on each applicant of\u00a0immediate detention for the length that each received. It\u00a0is not arguable that the sentence of\u00a0either of\u00a0the applicants was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. We refuse leave to appeal in both cases. _______________<\/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":"

MRS JUSTICE FARBEY: 1 The provisions of section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 apply in this case. No matter relating to either of the applicants or the victim of the offence shall, while they are under the age of 18, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members to identify that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[24566],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7980,17443,7621,7925,8348],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-606480","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-24566","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-group","kji_keyword-guideline","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-offence","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v ART & 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\/r-v-art-anor\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v ART & Anor\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MRS JUSTICE FARBEY: 1 The provisions of section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 apply in this case. No matter relating to either of the applicants or the victim of the offence shall, while they are under the age of 18, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members to identify that...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-art-anor\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"13 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-art-anor\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-art-anor\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v ART & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-19T12:47:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-art-anor\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-art-anor\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-art-anor\\\/#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 ART & 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":"R v ART & 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\/r-v-art-anor\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v ART & Anor","og_description":"MRS JUSTICE FARBEY: 1 The provisions of section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 apply in this case. No matter relating to either of the applicants or the victim of the offence shall, while they are under the age of 18, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members to identify that...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-art-anor\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"13 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-art-anor\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-art-anor\/","name":"R v ART & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-19T12:47:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-art-anor\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-art-anor\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-art-anor\/#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 ART & 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\/606480","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=606480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=606480"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=606480"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=606480"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=606480"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=606480"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=606480"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=606480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}