R. v. Lau Date:, 2013 BCPC 251

Citation: R. v. Lau Date: 20130809 2013 BCPC 0251 File No: 187532-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. SAI CHEONG LAU REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE K. ARTHUR-LEUNG Counsel for the Crown: M. Gulamhussein Counsel for the Defendant: P. Briggs Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: Feb. 6, June 13, July 28, 2013 Date of Judgment: August 9, 2013

[ 1 ] THE COURT : Sai Cheong Lau, hereinafter referred to as Mr.

Lau, has entered a guilty plea to that on or about the 30th day of March 2011, at or near the City of Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully produce a controlled substance, to wit, cannabis marihuana, contrary to s. 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . [ 2 ] Both Crown and defence counsel have set out to me two different sentencing positions with Crown seeking a 12 month period of incarceration and defence seeking a community supervision order. [ 3 ] There is a presentence report dated June 13th, 2013, setting out that Mr. Lau is 33 years of age and is currently married.

He was in a common-law relationship for a period of nine years in which he has a five-year-old son who resides with the mother. The report states that the parties are on the good speaking terms with one another, that Mr. Lau pays child support and that he exercises contact time with his son. Mr. Lau purchased a home in 2008 with a financial contribution from his grandparents. In the fall of 2010 he was struggling financially and his common-law relationship broke down and Mr.

Lau commenced a grow operation in the home, self- reporting to the writer of the PSR that the operation had been in existence for approximately four months prior to being arrested. [ 4 ] Mr. Lau married in 2012 and he has a second son born in 2013. He currently resides with his wife, with his second son and his in-laws in Burnaby, British Columbia. Mr. Lau currently works at a sushi restaurant as a busboy, averaging 25 hours per week and is seeking to return to commercial painting. He had attended BCIT in the past and has his ticket in excavating. Mr.

Lau lost the home, is in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings and is financially supported by his wife. Mr. Lau suffers from a knee injury sustained in 2010, had day surgery thereafter and has arthritis in both his knees and his ankle. It is noted in the report that he has pain management through his doctor with an authorization from Health Canada to grow medical marihuana for his pain, which authorization was obtained after this Information was sworn. The report notes that Mr.

Lau first started using marihuana at the age of 16 where he continued to use marihuana up to and including the current time of the offence, albeit at this time with a current Health Canada certificate. [ 5 ] Mr. Lau has one prior conviction from 2004 for a completely unrelated matter. [ 6 ] In the self-report portion of the presentence report, Mr.

Lau reports that at the time of the offence he was financially struggling to pay his bills, that his decision made to commit the offence was "purely financial" (Page 5), that he knew it was an offence but took what he referred to as "a calculated risk" (Page 5) and felt that he had "no choice" (Page 5) but to engage in the grow-operation. [ 7 ] The report somewhat conflicts in self-reporting statements stating that Mr. Lau "sees marihuana as a plant," however, does understand the negative impact such an offence has on himself and the community.

The writer of the report notes that the offence was committed for financial gain and that it appears that Mr. Lau has poor problem solving skills and that he chose to engage in an illegal activity despite knowing the negative consequences of his actions. [ 8 ] Exhibited in these proceedings as Exhibit 1 is a detailed list of documentation that was found in the home by the police, including Bell invoices, moorage invoices, property assessment notice, ICBC documentation in the name of Mr. Lau, a pay stub for Mr.

Lau, his personal Canadian citizenship card and other sundry personal documentation, all to support that Mr. Lau had been residing in the home for some time, had not been merely a party periodically attending the residence to check in and maintain the grow-op. [ 9 ] Exhibit 2 in these proceedings is a report from the Surrey RCMP, Sgt. Stovern, Drug Section, regarding the residence in which the grow-op was found located at 11337 Lansdowne Drive in Surrey, British Columbia. A total of 629 marihuana plants were found of which 423 were in the flowering stage of development and 206 plants were at the vegetative stage.

An electrical bypass was located and seized. Items seized related to the production included high-density discharge lamps, air conditioning units, fans, charcoal filters, water pumps, a scale and various Ziploc bags in various package sizes containing marihuana. [ 10 ] Exhibit 2 sets out that upon execution of the warrant, the home was found to be with the main living area in the upstairs portion of the home occupied with furniture. Upon entry the report notes that the smell of growing marihuana was immediately detected.

Various rooms within the home were fully furnished and there was evidence in addition to Exhibit 1 to support that Mr. Lau was residing in the home, including a well-stocked kitchen. The crisper in the refrigerator contained two further Ziploc bags of marihuana that was seized and a further two bags were located in the kitchen cupboard.

In addition, there was a bag seized in the master bedroom, the main floor bathroom was fully stocked with personal products, a shelf in the main hallway closet included a digital scale and further Ziploc bag of marihuana. [ 11 ] The grow-op encompassed the entire basement of the residence with the only access point being through a door from the kitchen, which had a doorknob and a deadbolt lock.

Upon opening such door revealed a plastic sheet hanging from the ceiling and when pushed aside the plants were clearly visible. [ 12 ] The basement consisted of four individual growing rooms, an electrical room and a nutrient room. Of the plants seized 102 vegetative plants were growing which were between 12 to 16 inches in height. A second room yielded 104 vegetative plants that were approximately 12 to 16 inches in height. A third room yielded 203 flowering plants being 24 to 32 inches in height. That final room included stacks of used root balls lining the wall and a generator.

A further room was found to hold 220 plants that were between 30 and 36 inches in height and this room included a generator. The nutrient room contained a variety of plant fertilizers and watering barrel with watering wand.

The electrical room contained ballasts, relay switches and timer switches. [ 13 ] Exhibit 2 concluded that it was a stage 3 marihuana grow-op that ran an average of between 90 to 120 days, culminating in a harvest, and further on page 5 states, and I quote: The presence of vegetative marihuana plants and flowering marihuana plants is consistent with an ongoing life cycle with an active crop rotation to maintain profitability. Each particular grow room in this operation was operating on individual grow cycles.

Vegetative plants were growing on 18-hour light cycles that mimic longer summer days, thereby encouraging the plants to grow strong and tall. Flowering marihuana plants were growing on 12-hour light cycles consistent with shorter fall days, thus encouraging the marihuana plants to flower and produce bud. Oscillating fans in each room circulated air and mimicked the wind to make the plants produce a

stronger plant root system. Vent ducting, air conditioning units and fans throughout the rooms in the basement also assisted with air circulation by purging stale air, returning fresh air and maintaining a healthy living environment for the crop. This type of plant maintenance is laborious. Evidence of prior harvests is evident with the presence of pre-packaged marihuana bud, used pots, soil and root balls and equipment.

The presence of packaged marihuana bud is consistent not only with personal use but also with the distribution and sale of the harvested product. [ 14 ] A total of 629 plants were seized, noting a yield of approximately 78 pounds of marihuana, with an approximate total value of between $117,000 to $163,800. [ 15 ] Exhibits 4 and 5 in these proceedings were letters of support for Mr. Lau. Those letters include testimonials that Mr.

Lau is "trustworthy", a "go-getter", that he plays and assists on a soccer team, he is a "reliable, trustworthy friend", again that he is trustworthy and that he "will go above and beyond", that he has "a kind heart", that he is a great father and that his actions cause one writer to be "shocked and disappointed in his behaviour as he had always been a good, law-abiding person". Further, the letters support that he can "give back to society if given a second chance" and that he has struggled with the loss of employment and the loss of a friend and that now Mr. Lau is on "a righteous life path". [ 16 ] Mr.

Lau currently pays the sum of $150 per month for child support and at the end of the submissions Mr. Lau apologized. [ 17 ] Both Crown and defence counsel have produced a number of cases to support each of their submissions as to sentencing. It is important to state from the outset that there is no one sentence that fits all of these types of matters and, thus, no one case produced by either Crown or defence will be to the fact pattern before each judge.

Every fact pattern is different and there will always be a different equation of facts, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, all of which must be considered by the court. The only commonality is that one must start with and always be mindful of s. 718 of the Criminal Code , which states: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [ 18 ] In addition, s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code states, "A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender." [ 19 ] Further, the court must be mindful of s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code which requires the court to take into consideration and carefully consider aggravating and mitigating factors when imposing any sentence. [ 20 ] Crown counsel seeks to rely upon the following: R. v.

Wong , [2007] BCJ No. 2946 , a decision of the British Columbia Provincial Court. This is a decision from the Kamloops Registry wherein a grow-op consisted of 160 plants and the court imposed a six month period of incarceration. The accused was found to be the sole owner of the home in a residential area, he had no criminal record, however, of note the court rejected some of the evidence of the accused and referred to it as being "fabrications" (Page 1, Paragraph 1). In imposing a sentence, that court in Wong (supra) was mindful of R . v.

Hill , [2007] BCJ No. 1196 , similarly a 2007 decision of the British Columbia Provincial Court, which states: That there is a significant and lucrative illegal marihuana industry in this province and that it has grown in scale and pervasiveness in recent years can hardly have escaped the notice of any informed citizen of the province. These aggravating facts are within the first class mentioned in R. v. Find 2001 SCR 32 and the sentencing judge did not err in judicially noticing them.

Indeed, this Court has taken judicial notice of the illegal drug trade in previous cases. [ 21 ] The Wong (supra) decision reinforced that position and noted that similarly, as in the matter before me with Mr.

Lau, that it occurred by a resident with indifference to the local community, that it occurred in a detailed residential dwelling in a residential neighbourhood and that such an illegal activity by its very operation carries with it risks within that neighbourhood to unsuspecting fellow residents which make that in and of itself an aggravating circumstance. [ 22 ] In Wong (supra) at paragraph 32 the court states: The combined effect of these cases that rose to becoming appellate authority in this province, which may be seen as bookends for the many other grow operations cases that have been decided in the intervening past seven years, is that in dealing with sizable marihuana grow operations of a commercial nature, without losing sight of the circumstances of the offender, an institutional jail sentence in the range of one year is well within acceptable consideration. [ 23 ] I also wish to particularly note in the Wong (supra) decision the court stated at paragraphs 34 and 35: ...when a person is in flagrant violation of the law and his motive was largely the profit he could obtain, even where none of the specific dangers that sometimes attend these operations can be identified, deterrence and denunciation are particularly important factors that can

never be lost sight of, in part, because of the risk that such operations put to other members of the community. That there is such a riskin all such cases, even where it is not actually proven that such a risk has become manifest, is clear from the remarks from MadamJustice Ryan in R. v. Van Santvoord.

She said that: ...over the years other cases of marihuana production have demonstrated that its illegal production creates the risk that it will attract otherillegal activities and dangerous consequences to the community in which it takes place. [24] In Wong (supra) the court further continued to state: The court recognizes that, even absent specific proof of the particular dangers spoken of, the risk is always there.

That risk to thecommunity in the various forms it can take is part of what makes the crime so serious, and in my view, it forms the basis for thecomment of Justice Ryan in that case, to the effect that: ...given the seriousness of the offence and the on-going and large size of the production, I am of the view that deterrence anddenunciation would not be adequately addressed by a conditional sentence. [25] I do acknowledge that in imposing a period of incarceration in Wong (supra) the court was mindful of the number of plants, thesophistication of the operation, the potential profits and the absence of a criminal record and that still warranted a decision of animposition of a period of incarceration. [26] In addition, Crown relies on R. v.

Nguyen, [2009] BCJ No. 1286, a decision of myself from 2009, and this was one of my owndecisions and which proceeded to trial and 566 plants were found in a grow-op. The accused had no criminal record and a period ofincarceration of nine months was imposed. However, of note, the court rejected the accused's testimony that it was a tenant who was theactual operating mind of the operation, that the accused failed to take responsibility and that a child resided in the home. [27] The Crown also relies on R. v. Budd, [2010] BCJ No. 1195.

In that the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered that theaccused was found with a grow-op of 316 plants, that there was no criminal record and imposed a 12 month period of incarceration. Ofnote, the accused failed to express any remorse and the presentence report noted poor prospects for rehabilitation. The Court of Appealconsidered this to be a mid-level ongoing sophisticated operation, considered the grow operations and the problems associated with suchand that this operation was for profit. The court was mindful of the R. v.

Koenders, [2007] BCCA 378 decision of the British ColumbiaCourt of Appeal and noted, at paragraph 17, cited Koenders (supra), stating: The person who becomes involved in the commercial production of marihuana, solely for profit, makes a deliberate decision to operateoutside the laws of this country. Generally, the principals of large scale commercial operations with few, if any, mitigating factors in the personal circumstances of theoffender will result in the imposition of a period of at least one year of conventional incarceration. [28] Crown also relied on R. v. Bi, [2011] BCJ No. 769.

This 2011 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld asentence of a nine month period of incarceration for a 375 plant grow operation. It was not the first crop and the accused had no criminalrecord. The operation took the entire basement of the residence. The Court of Appeal reviewed s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code and theSupreme Court of Canada decision of R. v.

Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 SCR 61 and that of conditional sentences and notedthat considerations for a conditional sentence by the court must consider that the accused is not convicted of an offence that is notpunishable by a minimum period of incarceration, that the term of incarceration must be less than two years, the safety of the communitymust not be endangered and it is not in conflict with ss. 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. So, too, in the case before me s. 742.1 mustbe carefully weighed and considered. [29] Crown also relies on R. v.

Laird, [2013] BCJ No. 73, which is a decision in which the accused operated a grow-op of 502 plantsin two modified outbuildings to the property. The accused had no criminal record. Madam Justice Watchuk imposed a sentence of ninemonths incarceration, to be followed by a six month probation order. The factors also of note is that unlike Mr. Lau, this operation inLaird (supra) did not use a hydro bypass and that the operation was in outbuildings. Madam Justice Watchuk, in citing Koenders(supra), found this to be at the low end of a large scale grow-op. [30] Defence counsel seeks to rely upon the following, R. v.

Giang 2010 BCSC 1016. This is a grow-op of some 402 plants invarious stages of growth. The court was mindful of Koenders (supra) decision and considered that conditional sentence orders or shortperiods of incarceration have been imposed for commercial grow-ops and that mitigating personal circumstances are factors to be takeninto consideration. Of note, there was a four year lapse from the date of the offence to the decision. A 15 month conditional sentenceorder was imposed. [31] Defence counsel also relies on R. v. Howitt 2010 BCSC 1475, which is decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

TheBritish Columbia Supreme Court imposed in Howitt (supra), an 18 month conditional sentence order for a grow-op of 700 plants. However, of note the accused maintained such an operation in a barn, it was located in a rural community and the accused was not theprincipal operator. Most of those factors are not present in the case before me. [32] Defence relies on R. v. Lam, Kuang and Ma 2012 BCPC 488 , 2012 BCPC 0488.

This decision was reviewed andnoted there was no consensus as to whether a conditional sentence order is appropriate or a period of incarceration for first timeoffenders and the British Columbia court reviewed the personal circumstances of those offenders. [33] Defence counsel also relies on R. v. Lau 2011 BCPC 215 , 2011 BCPC 0215, decision of this court registry of theBritish Columbia Provincial Court. This was a grow-op of some 1,338 plants, it contained a hydro bypass, the accused had no criminalrecord and it was a young accused.

Of particular note in this decision, the Honourable Judge Hicks found that the monies had not yetbeen earned from this operation. In the matter before me Exhibit 2 clearly details that there was evidence that this was an ongoingcommercial enterprise and that there had been at least one prior harvest. That is a distinguishing factor from the Lau (supra) decision of2011. In imposing a conditional sentence order, the Honourable Judge Hicks noted that it is a balancing of denunciation and deterrence

when determining the appropriate sentence. [34] Defence counsel also relies upon R. v. Lee 2013 BCSC 61; however, this case affords little assistance to me as it pertained to asmall grow-op of some 247 plants. [35] In addition, R. v. Moldovan 2009 BCPC 208 , 2009 BCPC 0208. Again, too, this case is easily distinguishable in thatwhile this was an operation of some 521 plants, the accused was not a primary operating mind and was not the owner of the home. [36] In addition, R. v. Ngo 2009 BCSC 1660, a decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

In imposing an 18 monthconditional sentence order the court was mindful that the accused was 45 years of age with three children, that he was a caretaker and notthe principal operator, that there were unique personal circumstances of the offender and there were barricades around the grow-op. [37] R. v. Shaw 2005 BCCA 380, a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. This 38 year-old-accused was the principaloperator.

Of particular note as to why the British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside the trial decision of incarceration was that at theinitial sentencing the trial judge was presented with a joint submission and the trial judge deviated from such joint submission of aconditional sentence order and imposed a period of incarceration. There is a very high standard imposed upon judges if one chooses todeviate from a joint submission and in Shaw (supra) the Court of Appeal was not satisfied that there were grounds to justify deviatingfrom such and reinstated the joint submission of a conditional sentence order.

Of note, there is also no assistance afforded here as to thesize of that grow-op and, in particular, the number of plants seized. [38] And, finally, defence counsel relies upon R. v. Li 2008 BCPC 224 , 2008 BCPC 0224. I find that the Li decision out ofthis registry to be an anomaly.

The facts are such that the accused had no criminal record, there were 1,338 plants, there was a bypassand the accused was young and a conditional sentence order, this rarity based on the facts as articulated in the decision as opposed toother cases presented by both counsel. [39] Crown counsel is seeking a period of actual jail time as the sentence whereas defence counsel is seeking that a conditionalsentence order would be appropriate in the circumstances.

To determine appropriate range of a sentence for consideration and the formthat such sentence takes in a matter such as this there is truly no hard and fast rule, for as many cases from my colleagues in this courtand from those above me imposing incarceration so, too, are there just as many cases from my colleagues in this court and from thoseabove me imposing a conditional sentence order. Ranges are exactly that. They are not hard and fast rules but do allow someparameters for consideration by the court.

To concentrate and focus precisely and pigeon hole a fact pattern to a set standard is simplyimpossible and to endeavour to do so would not be in the interest of justice in cases such as this. Every fact pattern is unique and everyperson is unique. Cases provide an offer of range and that is simply that, a range for guidance purposes for this court. No two factpatterns are ever the same.

No two offenders are ever the same. [40] I am mindful of both ss. 718 and 742.1 of the Criminal Code and after considering that and all of the case law furnished to meby both counsel, and the facts in the matter before me, I am not convinced that it would be appropriate to sentence Mr. Lau to aconditional sentence order. [41] I am aware that the mitigating factors are such that Mr. Lau has a young child for whom he pays child support, that he has arelatively new marriage with a second child and that he is suffering from pain and arthritis in his knee. I am also mindful that Mr.

Lauentered a guilty plea on the day of trial, that he has no criminal record and that he apologized at sentencing during submissions. However, I am also mindful that aggravating factors of significance include that this was a large scale commercial grow-op with 629plants recovered. Exhibit 2 outlines that of the 629 plants seized 423 were in the flowering stage of development and 206 plants were inthe vegetative stage of development. [42] Mr.

Lau was clearly the principal operator and Exhibit 1 is a detailed breakdown of the number of personal documents that werefound in many rooms of the home, all belonging to Mr. Lau. He was not a mere gatekeeper or caretaker. The entire basement had beenutilized for this operation, which included a hydro bypass, ballasts and generators, and the entry was through a door in the kitchen thatcontained a deadbolt and a plastic sheet when the door was open. Ziploc bags containing dried marihuana were found in more than oneroom upstairs.

This was a sophisticated operation on a large commercial scale which included four individual growing rooms, anelectrical room and a nutrient room. Such an operation required daily attention and a level of sophistication. [43] Exhibit 2 also notes that there was clear evidence from other Ziploc bags seized in various parts of the two-level house that thishad been an ongoing commercial operation, including evidence of at least one prior harvest and the operation conducted by Mr. Lauwould run from 90 to 120 days to culminate in a harvest. This was conducted in a suburban residential neighbourhood. Thus, Mr.

Lauplaced in harm's way his unsuspecting neighbours to his criminal enterprise. [44] While I am mindful that Mr. Lau's counsel submitted that he was in a financially struggling period and since such time hasentered bankruptcy and is now discharged, in no means am I convinced that this was done simply to make financial ends meet. It was acommercial operation on a large scale. There was evidence of at least one prior harvest. The street value as set out in Exhibit 2 of whatwas seized was estimated between $117,000 to $163,800 in value from what had been just seized. [45] This operation required daily attention.

It required a level of sophistication. It was an ongoing criminal enterprise. This was farbeyond someone simply struggling to pay bills. It was a calculated and organized operation. It was only after Mr. Lau had been chargeddid he obtain a Health Canada certificate for production due to the pain in his knee. This was not a grow-op of someone growing a fewplants to assist with personal pain management. This was an ongoing commercial venture of a large scale. There is moral culpability onthe part of Mr. Lau. [46] In imposing a sentence the sentence must be just and appropriate.

The sentence must consider the mitigating and aggravatingfactors and it must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender while also beingmindful of mitigating factors. It must condemn the role that the accused had in the offence and the harm caused and however be alsomindful of s. 718 of the Criminal Code. It is a delicate balancing process to ensure that a sentence imposed respects the guidingrequirement of proportionality and rehabilitation.

[ 47 ] I have also carefully considered the principles as set out whether to consider a conditional sentence order is appropriate. I also note that while both Crown and defence counsel have provided me with a number of cases to support each of their submissions, I also note that some of these cases can be considered historical. However, in R. v.

Laird, [2013] BCJ No. 73 , decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court of Madam Justice Watchuk, imposed a nine month jail sentence to be followed by a six month period of probation for the seizure of 502 plants in which the accused had no criminal record, it operated in two modified outbuildings, there was remorse and community support, there was an element of medical purpose and there was no hydro bypass used. [ 48 ] Again, as with many cases, when the operation moves from one of personal use for a medical purpose to a significant level of commerciality such as what Mr.

Lau was operating, with a level of sophistication, evidence of at least one prior harvest in a residential neighbourhood and an operation that takes the entire basement of a home, plus evidence of baggies upstairs in more than one room so, too, does the gravity of the offence. This is not appropriate for a conditional sentence order. There are not sufficient mitigating factors including when being weighed that would make such a sentence appropriate. [ 49 ] I conclude that even after considering an element of personal use by Mr.

Lau that this was a large scale commercial operation which was extremely sophisticated in its operation, Mr. Lau was the principle operator, it occurred in a residential suburban community and there had been evidence of at least one prior harvest and this was for pure commercial purpose. [ 50 ] Mr. Lau, if you could please stand up. I, therefore, sentence Mr. Lau to a period of incarceration to be served in an institution for a period of nine months. [ 51 ] MR. BRIGGS: Victim fine surcharge? I am applying for it to be waived. [ 52 ] MS.

GULAMHUSSEIN: No position taken. [ 53 ] THE COURT: 12 months time to pay. [ 54 ] MR. BRIGGS: Other orders? [ 55 ] MS. GULAMHUSSEIN: The prosecution was seeking, Your Honour, I believe, a forfeiture order as well as a -- sorry, Your Honour -- [ 56 ] MR. BRIGGs: DNA order. [ 57 ] MS. GULAMHUSSEIN: -- forfeiture order, DNA order and a ten-year firearms order. [ 58 ] THE COURT: Sorry, you are interrupting each other. Could we take it one at a time, please? [ 59 ] MS. GULAMHUSSEIN: Forfeiture order, a DNA order and a ten-year firearms prohibition. [ 60 ] THE COURT: Any position on any of those? [ 61 ] MR.

BRIGGS: I was opposed to the sentencing for the DNA order. I don't believe the firearms is mandatory. [ 62 ] THE COURT: All orders go, DNA, forfeiture and a ten-year firearms prohibition. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)