{"id":668340,"date":"2026-04-24T04:38:30","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T02:38:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/"},"modified":"2026-04-24T04:38:30","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T02:38:30","slug":"r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Mohammed Shakiel Yasin"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: Introduction 1. On 16\u00a0July\u00a02021, in the Crown Court at Leeds before His Honour Judge Bayliss and a\u00a0jury, the applicant was convicted of three counts of disseminating a\u00a0terrorist publication, contrary to section\u00a02(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (counts 2, 3 and 5). He was acquitted of a separate count (count 1) on the same indictment, and counts 4 and 6, which were alternative counts. 2. On 24\u00a0August\u00a02021 HHJ Bayliss sentenced the applicant to a Special Custodial Sentence of seven\u00a0years, pursuant to section\u00a0279 of the Sentencing Act 2020. That sentence comprised a custodial term of six\u00a0years and an\u00a0extended licence period of one year on each of the three counts to run concurrently. Relevant ancillary orders were made. 3. The applicant now applies for an\u00a0extension of time of 12 days in which to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence and for a\u00a0representation order after refusal by the single judge. Mr\u00a0Ahmed appears on his behalf on a\u00a0pro bono basis and has advanced submissions with focus and clarity, and we are particularly grateful to him. The facts 4. The facts giving rise to the offences are fully described in the Criminal Appeal Office summary and we do not repeat all that is set out there. In summary, the applicant sent two videos through WhatsApp which sought to encourage the recipient watching the videos to commit acts of terrorism. Count 2 related to the first video (referred to as the \u201cknife video\u201d), sent to Mohammed Sahil Khan at just after midday on 20 November\u00a02018. It depicted the applicant sharpening two knives and speaking in Arabic the words, \u201cMay the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be with you, brother Sahil. You know what this is for, don&#039;t you, that&#039;s one, Allahu Akbar.\u201d 5. Counts 3 and 5 related to the second video, the \u201cmeat cleaver\u201d video. It was sent on 20\u00a0November\u00a02018 to both Mr\u00a0Khan and to the applicant&#039;s daughter, who was 18 at the time. It depicted the applicant wearing a\u00a0headband with Arabic script whilst holding a\u00a0meat cleaver. In the video the applicant recited an\u00a0Arabic verse from the Quran, translated as, \u201cThose who disobey the Prophet, peace be upon him, or think they know better and their opinion is better than the Sunnah, they need this.\u201d 6. On 21\u00a0May\u00a02019 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of terrorist offences. His phone and his daughter\u2019s phone were confiscated by police and analysed. He had deleted the videos from his mobile phone, but the meat cleaver video was found on his daughter&#039;s mobile phone. There was evidence that he had been in frequent contact with extremist Islamic preachers and travelled regularly to Jordan to meet them. Whilst in Jordan, the applicant mixed with people known to be Islamic terrorists. There was evidence he had spoken in social media posts and WhatsApp messages in admiring terms of those who had killed themselves in the name of Jihad. After his arrest by the police, the applicant denied the offending. The sentence 7. The applicant was born on 2\u00a0August\u00a01972. He was 49 at the date of sentence. He had five previous convictions for eight unrelated offences dating back to the period 1991 to 2000. Those offences included an offence of battery in 2000 arising from an\u00a0assault on his wife while she was heavily pregnant. He had no convictions for terrorism or related offences. 8. The judge had a\u00a0detailed pre-sentence report. We too have read that report, together with character references about the applicant which were also available to the judge. 9. The Sentencing Council&#039;s Definitive Guideline for Terrorism Offences applies to all offences falling to be sentenced on or after 27\u00a0April\u00a02018 irrespective of their commission date and applied to all three offences. The judge explained that the offending in count 2, where the jury concluded that they could only be sure that the applicant had been reckless as to the consequences, was properly characterised as culpability C &#8211; defined as cases where characteristics of categories A or B are not present. The video did not \u201cencourage specific terrorist activity endangering life\u201d and had a\u00a0limited audience, so the judge found that the offence fell within category 2 for harm. That produced a\u00a0starting point of 2\u00a0years\u2019 custody and a\u00a0range of up to three\u00a0years. 10. Counts 3 and 5 were much more serious, as the judge found. He concluded that these were category 1A in the guideline. The meat cleaver video was a\u00a0clear incitement to terrorist activity, which placed it in category 1 for harm. There was culpability A because the applicant intended to encourage the recipients of those videos to engage in terrorist activity. He was in a position of trust, authority or influence over them. He abused that position to encourage them. Those conclusions reflected both the verdict of the jury that there was intentional encouragement and the clear assumed role as a religious leader amongst the group of whom Mr\u00a0Khan was a part. It also reflected the applicant\u2019s influence on his daughter\u2019s religious development and the reality that she was his daughter and therefore in a\u00a0relationship of trust, and the video provided instruction for specific terrorist activity endangering life. 11. The starting point identified by the judge was one of five\u00a0years\u2019 immediate custody. The judge recognised that the count 2 offence had a\u00a0lower starting point of two\u00a0years\u2019 custody but said that the video reflected in count 2 had to be viewed in the context of counts 3 and 5 and the much more serious nature in counts 3 and 5 had to be reflected. He said that he would pass concurrent sentences that reflected the whole of the criminality and accordingly identified the five year starting point for all three counts notwithstanding the difference between counts 2 and counts 3 and 5. 12. There were aggravating features, including the fact that the offences were motivated by and demonstrated hostility based on the religious beliefs of the intended victims; the audience was specifically targeted, and, so far as count 5 is concerned, vulnerable and impressionable. Samir Yasin (the applicant\u2019s 18 year-old daughter) was subject to intervention, having been referred to the Prevent Programme in\u00a0March\u00a02015 as a\u00a0result of posts suggesting an\u00a0aspiration to be a\u00a0Jihadi bride. Pro-Islamic state images had been found on her telephone in\u00a0October\u00a02017 at Liverpool Airport and the applicant had himself expressed concern about her radicalisation to the police. 13. The judge also referred to the deliberate use of encrypted communications to facilitate the commission of the offence or avoid or impede detection, and also to the deliberate removal of videos and chats surrounding that sending in order to cover up the applicant&#039;s activities. 14. So far as mitigation is concerned, the judge expressly noted the applicant&#039;s limited recent or relevant convictions. He noted the evidence of good character, including from witnesses and from the applicant&#039;s extensive charity work. He recognised that the applicant was a family man with family responsibilities, and that there would be emotional and financial consequences, including so far as the applicant&#039;s wife, parents and children were concerned. Finally, the judge recognised the impact of the Covid pandemic on prison conditions. The judge concluded, nonetheless, that the aggravating features outweighed the mitigation factors in the case and warranted an\u00a0upwards adjustment of one year from the five year starting point to produce a\u00a0custodial sentence of six\u00a0years on all three counts. 15. By virtue of sections 279 and 306 of the Sentencing Act 2020, offences contrary to section\u00a02 of the 2006 Act are specified terrorism offences within Part 3 of Schedule 18. This is determined by the date of sentence irrespective of the date of the offence, and the judge therefore considered the question of dangerousness within the meaning of sections 254 and 255 of the 2020 Act. He took into account whether the automatic operation of the provisions of section\u00a0278 of the 2020 Act would mean that an\u00a0extended sentence was unnecessary. He concluded that it did not result in that conclusion. He concluded that the applicant was dangerous and sentenced the applicant to a\u00a0Special Custodial Sentence of seven\u00a0years, comprising the custodial term of six\u00a0years and the extended licence period of one year to which we have referred. The appeal 16. In written grounds of appeal developed orally by Mr\u00a0Ahmed four arguments are advanced to support the overall contention that the total sentence was manifestly excessive in this case. First, in writing, Mr\u00a0Ahmed submitted that the judge was wrong to conclude that the applicant was dangerous; this was contrary to findings in the pre-sentence report and to the overall impact of the evidence before the court, including the absence of any relevant previous convictions. Secondly, the starting point of five\u00a0years was too high for the offences on each of the counts. Count 2 had a\u00a0starting point of two\u00a0years, so to identify a\u00a0five year starting point was plainly too high in respect of that count. But so far as counts 3 and 5 are concerned, there was no evidence that either of the two people who were sent the video actually watched it. There was no specificity in what was encouraged. Nobody was targeted or identified; and the videos themselves were sent to only two people. Moreover, the use of WhatsApp is common. Mr\u00a0Ahmed accepted that it is encrypted, but that is very different from the use of an\u00a0encrypted format such as EncroChat or other similar means. 17. The third argument advanced is that the aggravating features did not justify the increase to six\u00a0years. There was no particular evidence of any position of trust. Moreover, the judge effectively double counted by using the same factors that reflected culpability and harm to increase from a\u00a0five year starting point to a\u00a0six year custodial element. Finally, so far as mitigating factors are concerned, he submitted that the judge paid insufficient regard to the multiple mitigating factors in this case, not least the fact that there had been no previous incidents and nor were there any repeated incidents since the commission of these offences in the short period in 2018. For all those reasons, Mr\u00a0Ahmed submitted that this was not the worst kind of offending and certainly did not warrant a custodial sentence of six\u00a0years, which was manifestly excessive for all those reasons. Nor was an\u00a0extended sentence necessary or warranted. Discussion 18. Dealing first with the challenge to the finding of dangerousness, it seems to us that this is not arguable. There was ample evidence available to the judge to support his conclusion. He presided over the trial and was therefore in the best position to make this assessment and to consider the risk that the applicant posed. The evidence included the applicant&#039;s known association with terrorists and individuals associated with terrorist organisations. It included the video footage itself depicting him brandishing particularly dangerous weapons and it included Islamic extremist mindset evidence. The evidence also included clear support for and glorification of the actions of those killed fighting the Syrian government for Islamic extremist groups, describing them as martyrs and seeking to arrange marriages for their widows or other members of their immediate families. It included a direct familial link to a UK citizen who died performing as a\u00a0suicide bomber on behalf of al-Qaeda in Syria in 2014 &#8211; an\u00a0act the applicant continued to seek to justify at trial. It included his own evidence at trial that he had not disavowed his beliefs and either sought to depict the evidence as taken out of context or admitted that his support for terrorist actions in Syria was undimmed. The evidence also showed that he had sought, with some success, to assume a\u00a0role of religious leadership among his contemporaries in the UK and on the international stage. He had recorded speeches to his followers which incorporated a\u00a0phrase that he cited often, \u201cWe love death like you love life; and also put questions on behalf of others to senior Islamic scholars, including a scholar known as al-Maqdisi. There were several examples of him seeking to influence the religious education of his daughter, including praising her for sending him a\u00a0quote from Abu Qutada. 19. There was also the pre-sentence report by Gail Wilson. She noted that the applicant continued to maintain his innocence and referred to his need to seek approval and acceptance which led to him ignoring the risks of associating with extremist individuals. She observed that he held a\u00a0rigid point of view in religious terms and regarded it as a\u00a0matter of grave concern that he had knowingly associated with extremists. She recorded that he held deeply unpleasant extreme views for which he sought approval and confirmation from any available and potentially disreputable source. She said that any assessment of future risk had to be approached with caution. It had to take account of nuanced issues and the insidious nature of terrorist offences. She concluded that there was a\u00a0low risk of reoffending but a\u00a0high risk of serious harm and that the applicant remained susceptible to further radicalisation, a risk not limited to his presence in a\u00a0custodial setting. He remained prepared to meet with people who represented a proscribed group or organisation, and to seek to influence others. 20. We are satisfied that there was an\u00a0ample evidence base for the conclusion that the applicant was dangerous and that the contrary is not arguable. 21. As for the challenge to the six year custodial element of the sentence, again we consider that the judge\u2019s assessment was well within the range of assessments for cases of this kind and not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The judge properly regarded counts 3 and 5 as reflecting culpability A. As we have said, that reflected both the verdicts of the jury in finding there was intentional encouragement and the applicant\u2019s clear role as a\u00a0religious leader amongst the group of whom Mr\u00a0Khan was a\u00a0part, together with his influence on his daughter\u2019s religious development. 22. So far as harm 1 is concerned, it seems to us that the fact that there was limited distribution of this video is immaterial. Harm here was properly assessed by reference to the fact that there was a\u00a0statement or publication providing instruction for specific terrorist activity endangering life. That was a\u00a0conclusion well open to the judge given the video was a\u00a0clear incitement to attack apostates with a\u00a0meat cleaver or similar weapon. While there was no evidence of recipients of either video having acted on or been assisted by the encouragement to carry out activities endangering life, this would have been a\u00a0different factor indicating high harm and the absence of such evidence is not determinative. Here, moreover, one of the recipients was vulnerable and had been, at least partially, radicalised. 23. It seems to us that the challenge to the aggravating factors identified by the judge is equally unarguable, save perhaps so far as Mr\u00a0Ahmed&#039;s criticism of the judge&#039;s conclusion that the use of WhatsApp reflected a\u00a0use of encrypted communications. We recognise the force of this criticism and the difference between WhatsApp and other encrypted communications, but do not consider it to be material in the context of this case. Even ignoring this feature, there was undoubtedly a\u00a0relationship of trust between the applicant and his daughter. She viewed her father as an\u00a0authority figure, with a\u00a0significant role in her life, not least in the context of her religious education. There was also evidence that he was a\u00a0prominent figure in his religious community. He was older than Mr\u00a0Khan and the overall thrust of the evidence did not compel a conclusion that Mr\u00a0Khan had derided or mocked the applicant. The judge was entitled to conclude that Mr\u00a0Khan (like others) viewed the applicant as a\u00a0prominent figure in the religious community and this was a\u00a0relevant aggravating factor. 24. Moreover, the judge was sentencing for three offences, two particularly serious. He made clear that he was reflecting the whole of the criminality for all three offences in concurrent sentences on all three counts. That was an entirely orthodox and appropriate approach. 25. Having regard to the facts of these three offences, which are paradigm examples of offences contrary to section\u00a02 of the 2006 Act of particular gravity, we have concluded that it is not arguable that the sentence as a\u00a0whole did not properly reflect the overall criminality involved in this course of offending, and\/or that it was manifestly excessive. 26. In those circumstances, notwithstanding the compelling submissions made on the applicant&#039;s behalf by Mr\u00a0Ahmed, who has said all he could possibly have said, we refuse leave. Since no purpose would be serving in extending time given our conclusion, we refuse to extend time also. 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 1400Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ewca\/crim\/2022\/853\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: Introduction 1. On 16 July 2021, in the Crown Court at Leeds before His Honour Judge Bayliss and a jury, the applicant was convicted of three counts of disseminating a terrorist publication, contrary to section 2(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (counts 2, 3 and 5). He was acquitted of a separate count (count 1) on the&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7875,13304,7622,7621,7922],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-668340","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-counts","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-offences","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R v Mohammed Shakiel Yasin - 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-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Mohammed Shakiel Yasin\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: Introduction 1. On 16 July 2021, in the Crown Court at Leeds before His Honour Judge Bayliss and a jury, the applicant was convicted of three counts of disseminating a terrorist publication, contrary to section 2(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (counts 2, 3 and 5). He was acquitted of a separate count (count 1) on the...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/\" \/>\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=\"14 \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-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Mohammed Shakiel Yasin - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-24T02:38:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\\\/#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 Mohammed Shakiel Yasin\"}]},{\"@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 Mohammed Shakiel Yasin - 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-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Mohammed Shakiel Yasin","og_description":"LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: Introduction 1. On 16 July 2021, in the Crown Court at Leeds before His Honour Judge Bayliss and a jury, the applicant was convicted of three counts of disseminating a terrorist publication, contrary to section 2(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (counts 2, 3 and 5). He was acquitted of a separate count (count 1) on the...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/","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":"14 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/","name":"R v Mohammed Shakiel Yasin - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-24T02:38:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-mohammed-shakiel-yasin\/#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 Mohammed Shakiel Yasin"}]},{"@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\/668340","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=668340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=668340"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=668340"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=668340"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=668340"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=668340"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=668340"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=668340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}