{"id":5061,"date":"2018-03-07T09:27:01","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T09:27:01","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-06-21T14:27:49","modified_gmt":"2019-06-21T14:27:49","slug":"whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php","title":{"rendered":"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Whiston v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] UKSC 39<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> Judgment handed down: 2 July 2014 <\/p>\n<p> In Whiston v Secretary of State for Justice, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a person released from prison on a home detention curfew who<\/p>\n<p>            is subsequently recalled to prison under s. 255 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has rights pursuant to article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human<\/p>\n<p>            Rights. Specifically, the appeal was concerning the issue of how far it is open to a person who is still serving a sentence imposed by a court, to invoke<\/p>\n<p>            article 5(4). <\/p>\n<p> Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights states: <\/p>\n<ul>\n<p>                \u2018Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall<\/p>\n<p>                be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.\u2019<\/p>\n<\/ul>\n<p> Mr Whiston was sentenced to 18 months in prison for robbery on 5 October 2010. He was entitled to automatic release on licence after serving half of his<\/p>\n<p>            sentence on 5 July 2011 under s. 244(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, whereby: <\/p>\n<ul>\n<p>                \u2018As soon as a fixed-term prisoner, other than a prisoner to whom section 247 applies, has served the requisite custodial period, it is the duty of<\/p>\n<p>                the Secretary of State to release him on licence under this section.\u2019<\/p>\n<\/ul>\n<p> On 21 February 2011, he was released on licence under a home detention curfew pursuant to s. 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. On 7 April 2011, the<\/p>\n<p>            Secretary of State decided to revoke the licence under s. 255 of the Act which allows the Secretary of State to recall prisoners released early under s.<\/p>\n<p>            246 of the aforementioned Act, because his whereabouts could no longer be monitored in the community. The decision of the Secretary of State to recall the<\/p>\n<p>            Mr Whiston back to prison was not subject to any statutory judicial control or review. <\/p>\n<p> Mr Whiston contended that, as a result of the licence being granted on 21 February 2011, he regained his liberty and therefore, the subsequent revocation<\/p>\n<p>            of this licence and his consequent recall to prison constituted a deprivation of his liberty, which infringed article 5(4) of the European Convention on<\/p>\n<p>            Human Rights mentioned above. <\/p>\n<p> Lord Neuberger led the judgment, with whom Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes unanimously agreed that the appeal was to be dismissed from the Supreme<\/p>\n<p>            Court. Lady Hale also provided a concurring judgment. <\/p>\n<p> Under Strasbourg jurisprudence, where a person is lawfully sentenced to a determinant term of imprisonment by a competent court, there is (at least in the<\/p>\n<p>            absence of unusual circumstances) no question of his being able to challenge his loss of liberty during that term on the ground that it infringes article<\/p>\n<p>            5(4). This is because, for the duration of the sentence period, \u201cthe lawfulness of his detention\u201d has been \u201cdecided\u2026 by a<\/p>\n<p>            court\u201d, namely the court which sentenced him to the term of imprisonment. <\/p>\n<p> The court decided that based on this approach, article 5(4) could not normally be invoked in a case where, in relation to those serving determinate terms,<\/p>\n<p>            domestic discretionary early release provisions are operated by the executive. The notion that article 5(4) is satisfied by the original sentence was<\/p>\n<p>            decided to be principled. The court concluded that the common law should be able to provide appropriate protection to the rights of people in the position<\/p>\n<p>            of Mr Whiston without the need for intervention from the Convention. <\/p>\n<p> Lady Hale shared a similar view to that of the other law Lords, in that the revocation of a discretionary licence does not infringe article 5(4) of the<\/p>\n<p>            European Convention on Human Rights. Lady Hale however, held that the law draws a principled distinction between determinate prisoners who have reached the<\/p>\n<p>            point in their sentence at which they are entitled to be released on licence, and those who have not. The former are recalled from their licence, and their<\/p>\n<p>            representations to the Secretary of State are unsuccessful, they are entitled to have their case referred to the Parole Board. The latter, whose release on<\/p>\n<p>            licence are discretionary, are not. Lady Hale therefore distinguished that once a prisoner goes beyond the point of compulsory release on licence, then<\/p>\n<p>            article 5(4) would certainly apply. But in this instance, this was not the case. <\/p>\n<p> Supreme Court Press Summary available at: <a href=\"http:\/\/supremecourt.uk\/decided-cases\/docs\/UKSC_2012_0279_PressSummary.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">http:\/\/supremecourt.uk\/decided-cases\/docs\/UKSC_2012_0279_PressSummary.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n<p> Full case transcript available at: <a href=\"http:\/\/supremecourt.uk\/decided-cases\/docs\/UKSC_2012_0279_Judgment.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">http:\/\/supremecourt.uk\/decided-cases\/docs\/UKSC_2012_0279_Judgment.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Whiston v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] UKSC 39, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a person released from prison on a home detention curfew who is subsequently recalled to prison under s. 255 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has rights pursuant to article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-5061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.6 (Yoast SEO v26.6) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In Whiston v Secretary of State for Justice UKSC 39, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a person released from prison on a home detention curfew who is subsequently recalled to prison under s. 255 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has rights pursuant to article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In Whiston v Secretary of State for Justice UKSC 39, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a person released from prison on a home detention curfew who is subsequently recalled to prison under s. 255 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has rights pursuant to article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\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\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php\"},\"wordCount\":727,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php\",\"name\":\"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"In Whiston v Secretary of State for Justice UKSC 39, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a person released from prison on a home detention curfew who is subsequently recalled to prison under s. 255 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has rights pursuant to article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice | LawTeacher.net","description":"In Whiston v Secretary of State for Justice UKSC 39, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a person released from prison on a home detention curfew who is subsequently recalled to prison under s. 255 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has rights pursuant to article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.","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:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice","og_description":"In Whiston v Secretary of State for Justice UKSC 39, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a person released from prison on a home detention curfew who is subsequently recalled to prison under s. 255 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has rights pursuant to article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php"},"wordCount":727,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php","name":"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"In Whiston v Secretary of State for Justice UKSC 39, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a person released from prison on a home detention curfew who is subsequently recalled to prison under s. 255 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has rights pursuant to article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/whiston-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whiston v Secretary of State For Justice"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5061","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5061"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5061\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5061"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5061"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5061"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}