{"id":14575,"date":"2023-07-12T00:32:59","date_gmt":"2023-07-12T00:32:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?p=14575"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:47:10","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T14:47:10","slug":"case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35","title":{"rendered":"Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35"},"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 Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35, it was found that there doesn\u2019t exist an absolute requirement in closed material procedures that the claimant is to be provided with enough information on the proceedings to bring a challenge on the allegations brought against him.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of the Case<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>C was an employee of the Home Office whose security clearance was removed and was subsequently suspended when C\u2019s family members were arrested during a terrorism investigation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The employment tribunal utilised a closed material procedure in light of national security to conclude the case under section 10(6) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The tribunal found that C ought to be given sufficient detail about the ins and outs of the investigation to be able to satisfactorily challenge the claims that were being alleged against him.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Court of Appeal also made the same declaration as the tribunal, and the Home Office appealed this.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, should C have been provided with sufficient information in terms of the allegations made against him so that he can instruct him counsel and to challenge those allegations?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Held by the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court allowed the Home Office\u2019s appeal and found that the declaration of the Court of Appeal could be set aside because there isn\u2019t any requirement for providing C with any details of the alleged claims against him so that they can instruct their legal counsel during a closed material procedure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Lord Mance<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>His Lordship distinguished AF (No 3) and A v UK as such cases involved direct impingement on personal freedom of C. There was also emphasis on securing a balance between Article 6 and the public interest, which is determined by \u2018the nature and weight of the circumstances on each side.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201ccases where the state is seeking to impose on the individual actual or virtual imprisonment are in a different category to the present, where an individual is seeking to pursue a civil claim for discrimination against the state which is seeking to defend itself.\u201d [27]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Lord Hope<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cThere cannot, afterall, be an absolute rule that gisting must always be resorted to whatever the circumstances. There are no hard edged rules in this area of the law.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Lord Kerr (dissenting)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>His Lordship believed that it is an absolute requirement for C to be given \u2018sufficient information about those allegations to be ale to give effective instructions to his special advocate\u2019 which should not necessarily differ in this case. [132]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cIt seems to me that there is no principled basis on which to draw a distinction between the essence of the right to a fair trial based on the nature of the claim that is made.\u201d [132]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Principles and Key Points Facts of the Case Issues Held by the Supreme Court Lord Mance Lord Hope Lord Kerr (dissenting)<\/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-14575","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 v27.3) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35 | Careerinlaw.net | UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In the case of Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35, it was found that there doesn\u2019t exist an absolute requirement in closed material procedures that the claimant is to be provided with enough information on the proceedings to bring a challenge on the allegations brought against him.\" \/>\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-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the case of Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35, it was found that there doesn\u2019t exist an absolute requirement in closed material procedures that the claimant is to be provided with enough information on the proceedings to bring a challenge on the allegations brought against him.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-12T00:32:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-23T14:47:10+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=\"3 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-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\"},\"headline\":\"Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-12T00:32:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:47:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35\"},\"wordCount\":465,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#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-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35\",\"name\":\"Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35 | Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-12T00:32:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:47:10+00:00\",\"description\":\"In the case of Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35, it was found that there doesn\u2019t exist an absolute requirement in closed material procedures that the claimant is to be provided with enough information on the proceedings to bring a challenge on the allegations brought against him.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#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-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35\"}]},{\"@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: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"In the case of Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35, it was found that there doesn\u2019t exist an absolute requirement in closed material procedures that the claimant is to be provided with enough information on the proceedings to bring a challenge on the allegations brought against him.","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-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35","og_description":"In the case of Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35, it was found that there doesn\u2019t exist an absolute requirement in closed material procedures that the claimant is to be provided with enough information on the proceedings to bring a challenge on the allegations brought against him.","og_url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35","og_site_name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","article_published_time":"2023-07-12T00:32:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-23T14:47:10+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":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35"},"author":{"name":"Boris Ignachkov","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa"},"headline":"Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35","datePublished":"2023-07-12T00:32:59+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:47:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35"},"wordCount":465,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#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-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35","name":"Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","datePublished":"2023-07-12T00:32:59+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:47:10+00:00","description":"In the case of Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35, it was found that there doesn\u2019t exist an absolute requirement in closed material procedures that the claimant is to be provided with enough information on the proceedings to bring a challenge on the allegations brought against him.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#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-tariq-v-home-office-2011-uksc-35#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Summary: Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35"}]},{"@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\/14575","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=14575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14575\/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=14575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}