{"id":14261,"date":"2023-07-09T16:07:51","date_gmt":"2023-07-09T16:07:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?p=14261"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:45:46","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T14:45:46","slug":"case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152","title":{"rendered":"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-legal-principles-and-key-points\"><strong>Legal Principles and Key Points:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In the case of Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152, it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal that voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of manslaughter as that is an offence of basic intent, not specific intent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Both D and V were addicted to drugs, and took LSD one night<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A couple of days later, D (US citizen), in a hurry, booked his hotel and left the country for the USA<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The next day, V was found dead in her room by her landlord<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>She had suffered from blows in the head, causing a bleed on the brain, and died from asphyxia<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>D was extradited and gave evidence of going to V\u2019s room with her and being on a \u2018LSD trip\u2019<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He said, whilst on this trip, he felt he was being attacked by snakes and attacked them<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>D argued he did not have the necessary intention to kill or cause GBH, he appealed his conviction of unlawful act manslaughter stating the defence of voluntary intoxication applied<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues in Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Could voluntary intoxication be a defence to the specific intent crime of manslaughter?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Held by the Court of Appeal<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Appeal dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.<\/p><div id=\"caree-3221622429\" class=\"caree-within-the-content caree-entity-placement\" style=\"margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto;text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png\" alt=\"\"  srcset=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png 448w, https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1-300x250.png 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 448px) 100vw, 448px\" width=\"448\" height=\"373\"  style=\"display: inline-block;\" \/><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Lord Justice Wiggerly<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Wiggerly LJ stated \u201cFor the purposes of criminal responsibility we see no reason to distinguish between the effect of drugs voluntarily taken and drunkenness voluntarily induced\u201d, citing cases such as <em>DPP v Beard [1920]<\/em> and <em>Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] <\/em>for the latter [156]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>R v Church [1966]<\/em> did not introduce a new element as to the intention or foresight of harm arising from a charge of manslaughter [158]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cthe issue was concluded against him if ordinary sober and reasonable people would recognise that harm was likely to be caused. But it is nevertheless maintained that the theoretical basis of guilt was the prisoner&#8217;s supposed intent or foresight\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In the present case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cno specific intent has to be proved to convict of manslaughter, and self-induced intoxication is accordingly no defence. the acts complained of were obviously likely to cause harm to the victim (and did, in fact, kill her) no acquittal was possible and the verdict of manslaughter, at the least, was inevitable\u201d [159]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Principles and Key Points: Facts of Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 Issues in Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 Held by the Court of Appeal Appeal dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. Lord Justice Wiggerly Wiggerly LJ stated \u201cFor the purposes of criminal responsibility we see no reason to distinguish between the effect of drugs [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":13103,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-14261","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-case-summaries","8":"entry"},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v24.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 | Careerinlaw.net | UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In the case of Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152, it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal that voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of manslaughter as that is an offence of basic intent, not specific intent.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the case of Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152, it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal that voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of manslaughter as that is an offence of basic intent, not specific intent.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-09T16:07:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-23T14:45:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\"},\"headline\":\"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-09T16:07:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:45:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152\"},\"wordCount\":376,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152\",\"name\":\"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 | Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-09T16:07:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:45:46+00:00\",\"description\":\"In the case of Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152, it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal that voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of manslaughter as that is an offence of basic intent, not specific intent.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\",\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Boris Ignachkov\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/author\\\/boris\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"In the case of Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152, it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal that voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of manslaughter as that is an offence of basic intent, not specific intent.","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:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152","og_description":"In the case of Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152, it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal that voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of manslaughter as that is an offence of basic intent, not specific intent.","og_url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152","og_site_name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","article_published_time":"2023-07-09T16:07:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-23T14:45:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Boris Ignachkov","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Boris Ignachkov","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152"},"author":{"name":"Boris Ignachkov","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa"},"headline":"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152","datePublished":"2023-07-09T16:07:51+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:45:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152"},"wordCount":376,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152","name":"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","datePublished":"2023-07-09T16:07:51+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:45:46+00:00","description":"In the case of Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152, it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal that voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of manslaughter as that is an offence of basic intent, not specific intent.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-lipman-1970-1-qb-152#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Summary: Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Careerinlaw.net | UK"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa","name":"Boris Ignachkov","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Boris Ignachkov"},"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/author\/boris"}]}},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14261","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14261"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14261\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13103"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}