{"id":611569,"date":"2026-04-19T22:02:01","date_gmt":"2026-04-19T20:02:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-boe-barton\/"},"modified":"2026-04-19T22:02:01","modified_gmt":"2026-04-19T20:02:01","slug":"r-v-boe-barton","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-boe-barton\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Boe Barton"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. MR JUSTICE HOLGATE: On 30\u00a0June 2022, in the Crown Court at Sheffield before HHJ Kelson KC, Boe Barton was convicted of murder. Both he and Richard Sampson were convicted of having an offensive weapon in a public place. The jury was\u00a0unable\u00a0to agree on whether Sampson was also guilty of murder. But at a retrial before the same judge, Sampson was found guilty of murder on 30\u00a0March 2023. 2. On 31\u00a0March, the judge sentenced Barton (who was then aged 17) to detention at His Majesty Pleasure, with a minimum term of 18 years less time spent on remand, and to a concurrent sentence of 18 months\u2019 detention for the offensive weapon offence. He sentenced Sampson (who was then 50) to imprisonment for life, with a minimum term of 28 years less time spent on reman, and a concurrent sentence of 18 months\u2019 imprisonment for the offensive weapon offence. 3. Barton appeals against sentence with the leave of\u00a0the single\u00a0judge. Sampson renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the same single\u00a0judge. 4. On 30\u00a0July 2021, Richard Sampson (then aged 49) and Boe Barton (then aged 15 years 5 months) murdered 42-year-old Anthony Sumner. There had been a pre-existing dispute between Sampson and Mr\u00a0Sumner, which stemmed from the latter\u2019s belief that Sampson had reported him to security in Asda for shoplifting. Barton was the younger brother of Sampson\u2019s partner. 5. At 3.25 am on 29\u00a0July 2021, Sampson reported to police that the windows to his flat had been smashed. By mid-afternoon, Sampson had concluded that Mr\u00a0Sumner was responsible and was looking for him. He went, with others, to the flat of Mr\u00a0Wesley Bailey, a friend of Mr\u00a0Sumner), at Queen Mary Court, Sheffield, where he had been staying. Mr\u00a0Sumner was not there, and Sampson left. 6. At about 11.00 pm Mr\u00a0Sumner and Mr\u00a0Bailey were seen on CCTV walking along a road not far from the flat. About a minute later Sampson and Barton were seen jogging behind the other two men going in the same direction. They were tracking Mr\u00a0Sumner. Shortly before midnight, Mr\u00a0Sumner was walking along Queen Mary Road with Mr\u00a0Bailey as they made their way back to the flat. Sampson and Barton were lying in wait nearby. They wore face masks, and they were armed. The pair chased Mr\u00a0Sumner into the garden of a neighbouring property where they cornered him. 7. Sampson hit Mr\u00a0Sumner nine times with a machete. He brought the weapon down onto the victim\u2019s head three times, driving it with great force into the skull. One blow removed a piece of\u00a0bone. Barton stabbed Mr\u00a0Sumner to the chest with a knife four times. Three of these wounds penetrated the chest cavity. One in particular proved to be fatal, by causing catastrophic loss of blood into the chest cavity. Both Sampson and Barton fled the scene and disposed of their weapons. Local residents went to Mr\u00a0Sumner\u2019s aid. He was treated by police and paramedics but was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after midnight. 8. We have read the moving victim personal statements of Mr Sumner\u2019s mother, aunt and partner, and also of two\u00a0residents who witnessed the attack. Two children lost their father. 9. Barton was aged 15 years and 5 months at the time of the murder, 16 when convicted and 17 years when sentenced. In\u00a0September 2021 he received a 9-month referral order for breach of a conditional caution for possessing a bladed article in a public place in\u00a0February that year. In\u00a0November 2021 he received a conditional discharge for an assault by beating on 8\u00a0May 2021. 10. We have read the pre-sentence report on Barton and the addendum to that report. He was said to have been unable to discuss the offence or to explain why that was so. A week before the offence, Sampson had started to pester him and put him under pressure to spend time with him, possibly seeking introductions to drug dealers. Barton was the youngest of eight siblings. The report described the poor and abusive family upbringing. Social care records referred to violence, drug and alcohol misuse, criminal behaviour and domestic abuse within the family. The authority had carried out multiple assessments between 2006 and 2021. Barton\u2019s father had often been in prison and had had little involvement in his upbringing. His mother had suffered poor health in recent years. Social Care had made plans to find appropriate adult supervision for Barton. Barton\u2019s education had been disrupted by exclusions and moves to other schools. A report from the safeguarding lead at a school for special needs described Barton as being emotionally much younger than his biological age, with similar needs to that of a young child. He struggles to regulate his emotions, which means that he can present as being both verbally and physically aggressive. 11. Dr\u00a0Tom Matthews, a clinical psychologist, carried out a cognitive and adaptive behaviour functioning assessment on Barton in\u00a0September 2022. He was assessed as falling within the learning disability range for cognitive ability and above that range, but moderately low, for adaptive behaviour. However, it appears to us that the author of this report was being asked to focus on identifying Barton\u2019s needs during the custodial sentence rather than relating his assessment to Barton\u2019s involvement in and responsibility for the murder. 12. No pre-sentence report was prepared for Sampson. We agree that no such report was necessary. Sampson\u2019s antecedents included some historic, relatively minor offences of no significance to his sentence in this case. 13. In his careful sentencing remarks, to which we pay tribute, the judge said that he was sure that Sampson had taken the machete to the scene of\u00a0the murder and so the starting point for the minimum term was 25 years. Likewise, Barton\u00a0had taken the knife to the scene. 14. Applying paragraph 5A of schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, which had come into force two days before Barton\u2019s conviction, the starting point for the minimum term in relation to an offender aged 15 or 16 at the time of the offence was 17 years. 15. With regard to aggravating factors, the judge said that the offenders had followed the victim and ambushed him. There was a significant degree of planning or premeditation in relation to the violent attack, which had been two on one. The victim had been cornered and attacked savagely when unarmed and defenceless. The offence had taken place at night and in a public place. Both offenders wore masks and disposed of their weapons. Sampson had enlisted the help of a 15-year-old boy, who had no involvement in his grievance, and he had been the main aggressor in the attack. 16. With regard to mitigating factors, the judge accepted that the words spoken by Sampson just after the attack suggested that he had no intention to kill. But the judge said that the nature of the blows he had inflicted was also significant. He was satisfied that although Sampson had not intended to kill, he had intended to cause harm of the utmost gravity which fell just short of an intention to kill. He was relatively lightly convicted but the judge did not accept that there had been any meaningful provocation. 17. The judge was also satisfied that Barton had not intended to kill. But stabbing Mr\u00a0Sumner repeatedly where he did, showed his determined intent to cause the victim really serious bodily harm. The judge also weighed the mitigating factors in his case, taking into account the pre-sentence report and the psychologist\u2019s report. 18. In the advice prepared by leading counsel for Sampson, it was submitted that the lack of intention to kill should have resulted in a substantial reduction in the minimum term. The weight attached by the judge to the various aggravating factors suggested that he had increased the starting point of 25 years to well above 30 years before allowing for mitigating features. Thus, he said, the minimum term was manifestly excessive. We have also considered the letter from the applicant, dated 16\u00a0October 2023 and the Respondent\u2019s Notice. Discussion 19. We agree with the single\u00a0judge that the uplift in the minimum term from 25 to 28 years was not manifestly excessive. In R v Peters [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 101, this Court said at [14] that the legislation provides that a lack of intention to kill may provide mitigation, \u201cbut not necessarily and not always\u201d. Whether it does and, if so, the extent of any mitigation, is sensitive to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. At [16] the Court said that \u201c… it cannot be assumed that the absence of an intention to kill necessarily provides any or very much mitigation.\u201d 20. In this case, the judge found that Sampson\u2019s intention fell just short of an intention to kill. As the trial judge, he was in a good position to be able to draw that conclusion. In our judgment, the reasons he gave for doing so are compelling. Accordingly, any reduction for that factor had to be substantially outweighed by the aggravating features of this case and a significant uplift from the starting point was required. It is not arguable that the minimum term imposed on Sampson was manifestly excessive. Accordingly, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. 21. We are grateful to Mr\u00a0Rhodes KC for his submissions on behalf of Barton today. In summary, he submits that the minimum term of 18 years\u2019 detention did not adequately reflect\u00a0the mitigating factors applicable in Barton\u2019s case, namely: (1) There was no intention to kill. (2) The applicant\u2019s chronological age was towards the lower end of the range for 15 to 16 years old. (3) The applicant\u2019s immaturity relative to his chronological age, his low level of cognitive functioning and poor decision making under the influence of much older Sampson, who instigated the offence, and had the leading role. 22. Mr\u00a0Thyne KC, on behalf of\u00a0the prosecution, accepted that the appellant\u2019s age was towards the lower end of\u00a0the 15 to 16 year range referred to in para.5A of sched.21 and that there was evidence of immaturity and cognitive ability significantly below his\u00a0chronological age. However, he submits that the judge had full regard to all matters of mitigation and had been well placed to assess the aggravating features of the offending and to strike the appropriate balance. 23. We say straightaway that no sentence that a court can pass can compensate for the terrible loss of life felt by the victim\u2019s family and friends. 24. In our judgment, the nature of the repeated blows to the chest inflicted by Barton mean that his intention fell not far short of an intention to kill. He was determined to inflict grave harm. This was not impulsive behaviour. The appellant took part in a planned attack, having tracked the victim and then lain in wait wearing a mask. Viewed in context, the absence of an intention to kill did not call for the substantial reduction for which Mr\u00a0Rhodes contended. Quite properly, the judge\u2019s approach was influenced by the terrible brutality of this attack. 25. Nevertheless, a court must also give due weight to the circumstances of the particular young offender before it. We acknowledge that it was not an easy sentencing exercise for a court to take into account all the nuanced considerations applicable in this case and we accept that the judge did have regard to the relevant factors. We list those we consider to be of particular importance. The appellant had not long paused his 15th birthday when he committed the murder (see Attorney-General\u2019s Reference (SK) [2023] 1 Cr App R(S) 26 at [27]). More importantly, there was also his immaturity relative to chronological age, his upbringing as summarised in the pre-sentence report, his vulnerability to being swayed by other, particularly older, people and Sampson\u2019s leading role and influence on the appellant. 26. After anxious consideration, we conclude that the judge did not give sufficient weight to the overall effect of all these matters when taken together, so that the resultant minimum term he imposed was manifestly excessive. Taking all the relevant factors into account, we consider that the minimum term should be reduced from 18 to 16 years. To that extent only, the appeal of Barton is allowed. We should make clear that the revised minimum term is 16 years subject to the deduction of the time specified as having been spent on remand, which may be corrected administratively if necessary. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS 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":"

1. MR JUSTICE HOLGATE: On 30 June 2022, in the Crown Court at Sheffield before HHJ Kelson KC, Boe Barton was convicted of murder. Both he and Richard Sampson were convicted of having an offensive weapon in a public place. The jury was unable to agree on whether Sampson was also guilty of murder. But at a retrial before the…<\/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":[24773,7621,25139,25140,8347],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-611569","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-barton","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-sampson","kji_keyword-sumner","kji_keyword-years","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Boe Barton - 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-boe-barton\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Boe Barton\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. MR JUSTICE HOLGATE: On 30 June 2022, in the Crown Court at Sheffield before HHJ Kelson KC, Boe Barton was convicted of murder. Both he and Richard Sampson were convicted of having an offensive weapon in a public place. The jury was unable to agree on whether Sampson was also guilty of murder. But at a retrial before the...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-boe-barton\/\" \/>\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=\"10 \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-boe-barton\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-boe-barton\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Boe Barton - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-19T20:02:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-boe-barton\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-boe-barton\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-boe-barton\\\/#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 Boe Barton\"}]},{\"@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 Boe Barton - 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-boe-barton\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Boe Barton","og_description":"1. MR JUSTICE HOLGATE: On 30 June 2022, in the Crown Court at Sheffield before HHJ Kelson KC, Boe Barton was convicted of murder. Both he and Richard Sampson were convicted of having an offensive weapon in a public place. The jury was unable to agree on whether Sampson was also guilty of murder. But at a retrial before the...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-boe-barton\/","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":"10 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-boe-barton\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-boe-barton\/","name":"R v Boe Barton - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-19T20:02:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-boe-barton\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-boe-barton\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-boe-barton\/#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 Boe Barton"}]},{"@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\/611569","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=611569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=611569"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=611569"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=611569"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=611569"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=611569"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=611569"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=611569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}