r v. DEREK MICHAEL GLEGG, 2021 QCCQ 12635

R. c. Glegg 2021 QCCQ 12635 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Criminal and Penal Division No: 500-01-200624-200 DATE: November 25, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING : THE HONOURABLE LOUISE PROVOST, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v. DEREK MICHAEL GLEGG Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr.

Derek Michael Glegg (the accused) was found guilty on April 22 nd , 2021, after his trial for a count of extortion. [ 2 ] According to the written judgment, the accused induced, without reason or excuse, the victim S. A. to give him money, between December 3, 2018 and December 8, 2019 under the constraint that explicit nude photos of her would be posted on the internet. [ 3 ] The victim is a 46 year old woman who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, undifferentiated type in a medical report in 1996. She is unemployed and vulnerable. [ 4 ] She met the accused at the bus stop near her parent’s home in 2018.

At the second encounter, while invited to her apartment, he took pictures of her undressed with his phone. [ 5 ] She called him every day from her parent’s home and from her home. She admitted that he was her only friend. [ 6 ] She met him around ten times between summer and December 2018.

On December 3 rd , he called her and wanted to meet at Côte-Vertu metro. [ 7 ] He asked her for money and showed her the intimate pictures, adding: “ Do you want me to post your pictures on the internet?” [ 8 ] She then withdrew 300.00 $ that he took from her hands in the bank. [ 9 ] After that encounter, she felt vulnerable and lonely.

She said that he always wanted oral sex and money. [ 10 ] This relationship lasted less than two years and ended in December 2019 after her father saw that money was missing and that she could not pay her bills. [ 11 ] Due to the victim being incapable of acting on her own behalf, her father and tutor completed the victim impact statement, form 34.2 under Section 722(4) of the Criminal Code . [ 12 ] On her emotional impact, he wrote: I was traumatized, confused and lost confidence in strangers. I was afraid to tell my parents.

I had trouble concentrating in activities (volunteering at the hospital) and also in the cooking classes at the Institute of Psychiatry on Cote Ste-Catherine. [ 13 ] She also wrote that she fears for her own security and the security of her parents.

The Presentence Report [ 14 ] At his trial, the accused testified. [ 15 ] After being injured in a forklift accident in 2010, he said that he cannot work and receives welfare. [ 16 ] He admitted being a convicted criminal with a lengthy criminal record since 1978, being first convicted in Canada. [ 17 ] Three years later, he was sentenced to 25 years in Florida for kidnapping, armed robbery and attempted first degree murder.

[ 18 ] He came back to Canada around 1998 and was sentenced to 13 years (according to the criminal record, the sentence would actually be 92 months, plus three months served consecutively) for armed robbery around 2001. [ 19 ] He has been living with the same roommate for the past 13 years. He met her at the “mountain” after he was released from prison. He takes care of her out of the goodness of his heart. Their relationship is strictly platonic and was never intimate. [ 20 ] His roommate is schizophrenic and he makes sure that she takes her medication.

He also does the cooking and the cleaning. [ 21 ] At his trial, the accused urged the Court to believe that the victim had made up these allegations because she was jealous and angry about not being accepted as his roommate. [ 22 ] The accused was not believed and the Court was not left with a reasonable doubt by his evidence.

After considering all the evidence, the Court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. [ 23 ] But knowing that the accused was taking care of another vulnerable person, the Court wanted to know more about him because a jail term was considered by both parties. [ 24 ] The Court then requested a Presentence Report. [ 25 ] The defence disagreed with this request saying that these reports were never favourable to his clients. [ 26 ] It is not surprising that this report is unfavourable to the accused mostly because of his lack of honesty and integrity. [ 27 ] He first presented a courteous and receptive attitude but after he systematically blocked access to his roommate, even though he had identified her as a resource person.

He then declined to answer questions and withdrew from the process, calling it unnecessary [1] . [ 28 ] Despite the loss of contact with the accused, Joëlle Piché, probation officer and criminologist, was still able to assert that his criminal values seem to be deeply entrenched, having been known to the justice system for forty years. [ 29 ] Because he lacks alternative solutions, to resolve conflicts, he uses confrontation, intimidation and aggressive behaviours.

While incarcerated, he adopts controlling and intimidating behaviours that regularly isolate him from the general prison population. [ 30 ] As to the recommendations, the Court believes that the following paragraphs of the report should here be reproduced: From a criminological standpoint, Derek Michael Glegg’s criminal record is long and illustrates persistent, organized and structured delinquency. Polymorphic in nature, his criminality is nonetheless aimed at profit. It further reveals an instrumental use of accomplices and violence to facilitate the commission of crimes.

One of the offences took place in a marital context, the behaviour being reactive, improvised and emotional. The persistence of criminal activities for thirty years without abating demonstrates the chronicity of behaviours, adherence to criminal values, and the low deterrent impact of interventions deployed by the judicial system. Mr.

Glegg seemed unaffected by the consequences of his actions on the victims in the same way that he seemed unaffected by the sanctions he received. […] If he has not been convicted of a violent offence for 20 years according to his criminal record, we cannot ignore the many intimidating behaviours listed in the correctional files until 2009. At this stage, we’re not sure Mr. Glegg has reached the saturation point of his criminal career and we are questioning his real degree of awareness concerning his current criminal dynamics. Since the commission of the offence Mr.

Glegg hasn’t had any subsequent encounter with the judicial system. He says he stays abstinent from hard drugs and feels no withdrawal effects even when his roommate uses drugs at home. He maintains his alcohol and cannabis use habits to soothe his knee pain without noticing any adverse effects on his functioning. We do not have enough information to make recommendations on that matter. Concerning his involvement in the labour market, Mr. Glegg’s activities remain unverifiable except that he went to an employability integration organization for four months.

He indicated that he worked from April to July 2020 as a maintenance worker after damages [2] . […] Mr. Glegg’s support network is limited to a childhood friend and that friend’s mother. Although they want to support Mr. Glegg and disapprove of his criminal behaviour, they were little aware of his real situation. As for his roommate, without being able to contact her, we can only express reservations. At the request of the Court, we investigated the nature of their relationship.

Derek Michael Glegg recounts meeting Ophélie Chartier in 2014 when she was homeless, addicted to crack cocaine, and not regularly taking her medication prescribed for a schizophrenia disorder. He said he invited her to sleep on his sofa, which she has been doing for seven years now while Mr. Glegg occupies the room. She now pays half of the utility bills and rent. In a police report (2015), Ms. Chartier is identified as Mr. Glegg’s spouse by the owner of the dwelling. Mr. Glegg denies any romantic feelings towards her, which is, however, questioned by his relatives.

His relatives share the general impression that she was a spouse, at least at the start of their cohabitation. While Mr. Glegg denies any sexual interest, one of his relatives claims to have received confidences from Ms. Chartier complaining of discomfort induced by unsolicited behaviour towards her. It is important to specify that we were not able to corroborate these elements with Ms. Chartier, and Mr. Glegg categorically denies them. He insists on his roommate’s unreliability and lack of credibility due to her drug use and psychiatric condition. Regarding the self-proclaimed title of caregiver, Mr.

Glegg admits that he has not received any official accreditation validating this role. […] He nevertheless asked Ms. Chartier’s mother to sign a letter confirming that he is helping her daughter. Without understanding the reason for his request or being aware of the current accusations, the mother said she signed the said letter. Mr. Glegg says that he hasn’t been accompanying Ophélie Chartier to medical appointment for some time, but he was unable to specify the year he last went with her. […] As for the professionals from the treatment team to whom Mr.

Glegg referred us, they said they are no longer providing service to Ms. Chartier since 2014 and 2019. None of them considered Mr. Glegg as her natural caregiver. On the contrary, several described a codependent relationship detrimental to Ms. Chartier’s progress [3] .

In addition, some professionals have expressed concerns, indicating that Mr. Glegg seemed to control access to Ms. Chartier, preventing the professionals to access the apartment. The treatment team (2018-2019) indicated it was able to enter the apartment on one occasion and was confined to a room, unable to verify the condition of Ms. Chartier’s living environment. Ms. Chartier’s mother confirms the situation, indicating that she never obtained Mr. Glegg’s permission to visit her daughter in the apartment. For our part, Mr.

Glegg refused that we contact his roommate directly and did not give her the handset during our calls while she was at his side. […] As a social reintegration project, Mr. Glegg wishes to remain a “natural caregiver” to Ms. Chartier. He mentions the possibility of going back to school to learn a trade, such as plumbing. He does not rule out the possibility of participating in an approach to further his personal development, but insists that it be held in the community after the determination of his sentence, which limits the option, and suggests extrinsic elements to his motivation.

In our opinion, the proposed project should be more detailed and better targeted. We also question its feasibility. We think that to be relevant given his criminogenic needs, Mr. Glegg should question his problem-solving strategies and his use of controlling and intimidating behaviour. He would benefit from developing his empathy and improving his basic socialization skills. He should acquire more tools and skills to manage his emotions. In addition, he would benefit from legitimizing his employment situation and consolidating a more forward-looking way of life to optimize his long-term prospects.

In this perspective, reducing his financial burden could allow him to better resist any temptations or lucrative opportunities that may arise [4] . Mr. Glegg offers few guarantees where previous attempts have failed, as the steps undertaken have not been sufficient to prevent a return to criminality. Of course, the access and presence of a person with a profile similar to that of the victim in this case can only be of concern. Whatever the decision of the Court, in order to optimize the potential for social reintegration and reduce the risks, it seems important to provide support to guide Mr.

Glegg and his efforts to change. In light of all of these elements, the prognosis appears dark and mixed despite the willingness expressed by Mr. Glegg at the start of the assessment process. We believe that the risks of recidivism and violent behaviour cannot be ruled out considering Mr. Glegg’s shortcomings in problem solving, the magnitude of his financial burden, and the lack of significant change observed since the events. These risks are nevertheless dependent on the efforts Mr. Glegg will deploy to make lasting changes to his life.

Position of the parties The prosecution [ 31 ] M e Castonguay submits that an incarceration term of three years should be imposed. He reminds the Court that extortion is punishable by life imprisonment; it is of high objective gravity. [ 32 ] The subjective gravity is also extremely aggravating because the victim is vulnerable and mentally limited. [ 33 ] The accused’s criminal record (see annexe) is also very heavy. The sentences imposed were also essentially incarceration and of a significant length of time.

Such as 25 years in the United States after committing a robbery in a bank during which a police officer was killed when the getaway vehicle, driven by an accomplice, rushed through a roadblock [5] . [ 34 ] He does not believe that the “Gap Principle” should apply in this case because there is no evidence of rehabilitation, no mitigating factors and a high risk of recidivism. [ 35 ] The attorney submitted many court cases to support his recommendation for three years of penitentiary [6] . The defence [ 36 ] M e Poirier indicates that the accused’s conduct was not planned or deliberate.

He also adds that the extortion was not of a great magnitude, referring to the sum of 300.00 $. [ 37 ] He referred the Court to the Presentence Report at page 6: […] Mr. Glegg now regrets he lacked judgment in the past. He says he is seeking to make amend by making changes to his life, such as sorting out his negative associates.

Indeed, he hasn’t been as present in court in the last decade. [ 38 ] He also makes mention to the “Gap Principle” because of the extended gap between his last serious conviction and this recent offence. [ 39 ] His lawyer sustains that the gap demonstrates his prospect and desire for rehabilitation despite the serious crimes that he has committed in the past. [ 40 ] He submits case law [7] and recommends a period of detention of six months, this being a lesser sentence for his genuine effort of rehabilitation.

The law [ 41 ] The purpose and principles of sentencing are contained in Sections 718 and following of the Criminal Code . [ 42 ] More specifically,

Section 718 indicates that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. [ 43 ] Those should have one or more of the subsequent objectives, to wit to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct, to deter the offender and other persons from committing crimes, to separate

offenders from society, where necessary, to assist in rehabilitating offenders, to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 44 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing reads as follows in

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code : A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 45 ] In offences involving violence, courts have always stressed that the objectives of denunciation and deterrence should prevail, or at least should be given strong consideration over other sentencing objectives. [ 46 ] As for the other sentencing principles,

Section 718.2 states that a court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation. Analysis [ 47 ] What should be the appropriate sentence for Mr.

Derek Michael Glegg, a man of 62 years of age with a lengthy criminal record and a structured delinquency, from a criminological standpoint [8] ? [ 48 ] When the Court ordered a Presentence Report, it was mostly because there was a need to know more about a man that pictured himself as a natural caregiver of another vulnerable woman who is schizophrenic, this all from the goodness of his heart. [ 49 ] In the preparation of this report, we now know that the accused systematically blocked access to his roommate, even though he had identified her as a resource person. [ 50 ] He insisted on his roommate’s unreliability and lack of credibility due to her drug use and psychiatric condition. [ 51 ] No professional from the treatment team considered Mr.

Glegg as her natural caregiver. “On the contrary, several described a co-dependent relationship detrimental to Ms. Chartier’s progress [9] ”. [ 52 ] Foremost, Ms. Chartier’s mother indicated that she never obtained the accused permission to visit her daughter in the apartment [10] . [ 53 ] He said in his testimony that she has been his roommate for the past 13 years. The Court learned that he met her in 2014, seven years ago. [ 54 ] In his trial, he also said that the victim Ms. A. only lent him 20.00 $ once, for a straw hat that he paid back a few days later.

The Court learned from the criminologist’s report that Mr.

Glegg admitted that he took 300.00 $ from the victim, but rejected any malicious intent in his actions and denied the rest of intimidation or threats [11] . [ 55 ] We cannot know for certain how much money was really taken from the victim during the period of time, but relying on her testimony, it happened more than once. [ 56 ] It is clear from the Court’s point of view that the accused is not honest and lacks credibility. [ 57 ] The Court does not see any mitigating factor favourable to the accused. [ 58 ] As for the aggravating factors, they are the objective gravity and seriousness of the offence punishable by life imprisonment, the vulnerability of the victim which is an aggravating factor, his lengthy and serious criminal record as well as the dark and mixed prognosis concerning the risk of recidivism and violent behaviour.

Should the Court apply the Gap Principle? [ 59 ] During his adulthood, the accused was in the community for a few months between his periods of incarceration until he reached his fifties in 2009. His criminality is described as profit-oriented. [ 60 ] In our file, the victim of the extortion is another vulnerable person for whom he has no compassion.

His words tend to degrade and discredit her considering her vulnerability due to her psychiatric condition [12] . [ 61 ] His previous criminal behaviours include several disciplinary violations and the US correctional record lists 64 incidents, more than half of which were sanctioned by periods of confinement, sometimes up to six months [13] . [ 62 ] As written in the Presentence Report, as of today, the accused still seems to have difficulty resolving his frustrations in a healthy way. [ 63 ] Even if his last conviction for a serious crime was in 2001, he was only released in 2009.

In our case, he committed an extortion over a period of one year, on more than one occasion starting in December 2018, nine years after he was set free. [ 64 ] In R. v. D.K.P [14] , the former boyfriend threatened the brother and mother of the complainant to reveal nude pictures unless he was given a compensation of 4,000.00 $.

In relation to his offence, the Court of Appeal stated in 1991 that he should be sentenced as a man without a criminal record (in England between 1968 and 1976, all for offences that brought small fines) and as someone with a very old criminal record in his initial country of origin. [ 65 ] Bearing in mind the need for a sentence incorporating general deterrence, as of the need for specific deterrence and

rehabilitation, the Court substituted the two years less a day with a two year probation, by 15 months of imprisonment with a continuation of a two year probation. [ 66 ] The defence pleaded two decisions in relation to the “Gap Principle”. [ 67 ] In The Queen v. Barry Joseph Wolfe [15] , Judge Toth, from the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan, wrote: THE GAP PRINCIPLE

a) What is the Gap Principle? [11] The gap principle essentially states that when there is a substantial period of time that passes without any criminal convictions, the offender can be inferred to have some potential of rehabilitation and to be amenable to deterrence, thus not to be a “professional” and hardened offender. Therefore, a lesser sentence is required to protect the public than would be if there was no gap; the Court may turn the page and disregard the stale previous record or minimize its impact on the sentencing decision, thus more or less treat the accused as a first time offender.

Logically, the gap principle only applies if the clean period in the record is not simply the result of non-detection but stands for a genuine effort of rehabilitation (see Clayton C. Ruby, Sentencing , 8 th ed (Markham: LexisNexis Canada Inc, 2012), at para 8:96). [12] The principle was well summarized in R v Andrade , 2010 NBCA 62 , 363 NBR (2d) 159. Here, the Court held at para 25 that “[s]uccinctly stated, the gap principle applies in cases where there is a substantial gap in time since the last conviction was entered.

A so-called “trouble free” period supports the inference that the offender is not a professional criminal.” [Emphasis added] [ 68 ] And further on: [17] In R v Moreau , 2007 BCCA 239 , 49 MVR (5 th ) 246, the offender was convicted of driving while impaired. The Court held that the gap principle did not apply because the offender had never stopped drinking, thus never attacked the root problem of his drinking and driving offences. The Court found that he was merely lucky not to have been caught for drinking and driving during the gap in criminal convictions.

Thus, the sentencing judge has to make sure that the prospect of rehabilitation is real, not just inferred from the crime free period. [ 69 ] In Hunt , J. Toth considered that the six year gap should apply and that the accused should get credit for his significant attempt to get rid of his addiction problems, showing in his criminal and driving record. In imposing a one year term of imprisonment, the Court wrote that the record’s impact on the sentencing decision should be minimized. The Crown was seeking a penitentiary term and the defence a curative discharge. [ 70 ] In R. v.

Kennedy [16] , the accused was convicted of manslaughter His two years less a day sentence was appealed by the Crown, in part because the accused had a criminal record which included assault, breaking and entering, and escaping custody. The Court of Appeal held that: [8] It is apparent that since committing the offences of breaking, entering and theft, and unlawful possession, for which he was convicted on 6th October 1965, Kennedy has been a law-abiding citizen.

I agree with the learned trial Judge that, after having gone five years without involvement in the criminal law, the past record should not be too material a factor in determining an appropriate sentence. [ 71 ] The sentence was nevertheless increased to three and a half years on the grounds that two years less a day did not reflect the gravity of the offence of manslaughter. [ 72 ] In our case, the Court considers that the circumstance of the offence of extortion shows that the accused has not changed since he was released in 2009.

The Court is facing here a professional criminal whose behaviour is well described in the report and who has not shown signs of real rehabilitation. [ 73 ] Considering the content of the Presentence Report, the Court believes that the “Gap Principle” should not apply. [ 74 ] As to the relevant other sentencing precedents, there is R. v. Rahimi [17] in which the accused was convicted of attempting to procure the complainant to become a prostitute and of extortion. The British Columbia Court of Appeal indicated that the accused was involved in an intimate relationship with the complainant.

The complainant was described by the judge as a drug-addicted, vulnerable and troubled 16 or 17-year-old girl. [ 75 ] After the relationship ended, and over a period of one day, Mr. Rahimi repeatedly sent text messages to the complainant demanding that she pay him 7,000.00 $ that he claimed he spent on her during their relationship.

If she did not have the money, he expected her to work as a prostitute to pay him back, or he would turn her over to a person or he would harm her, himself. [ 76 ] The trial judge imposed a period of six months of imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently followed by a two year probation. An appeal by the accused to the British Columbia Court of Appeal was dismissed. [ 77 ] Mr. Rahimi was 26 years old and had no criminal record. [ 78 ] In a case involving threats to expose nude photographs in order to gain sexual favours, the Supreme Court of Canada noted in R . v.

Davis [18] : […] Extortion criminalizes intimidation and interference with freedom of choice. It punishes those who, through threats, accusations, menaces, or violence induce or attempt to induce their victims into doing anything or causing anything to be done. […] When threats are

coupled with demands, there is an inducement to accede to the demands. This interferes with the victim’s freedom of choice, as the victim may be coerced into doing something he or she would otherwise have chosen not to do. [ 79 ] In Davis , a period of nine years of imprisonment was imposed on the accused for crimes that occurred between 1984 and 1991, holding himself out as a photographer with connections to a modelling agency, invited the complainants, who ranged from 15 to 20 years of age, to pose for a portfolio of photographs with a view to initiating a modelling career. They posed nude or semi-nude.

He also sexually assaulted the complainants. [ 80 ] He also threatened to send explicit photos to either their parents or to a pornography magazine if they did not agree to perform sexual favours for him. [ 81 ] The trial judge convicted the accused of two counts of extortion against two complainants and of five counts of sexual assault against the five complainants. [ 82 ] On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. [ 83 ] More recently, in R. v.

Kyle Stephen Hunt [19] , Judge Gorman of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador found that nine months of imprisonment would be an appropriate sentence, followed by two years of probation for the offence of extortion. [ 84 ] Mr. Hunt was 22 years of age and had no prior convictions. The judge considered his young age, his lack of a criminal record and his prospects for rehabilitation. [ 85 ] Judge Gorman wrote at paragraph 45: In this case, Mr. Hunt threatened to publicly release extremely intimate, personal and private photographs of a person he had been involved in a relationship with.

It must be appreciated that the threat to place them on Facebook adds an element of widespread public access which would not exist in other forms of extortion. In imposing sentence for this offence the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation must be emphasized. [ 86 ] The sentencing precedents illustrate a wide range of sentences.

But they also illustrate the serious nature of the offence of extortion and the impact on the victim. [ 87 ] It is difficult to compare one case to another. [ 88 ] The process of determining a sentence requires full consideration of the gravity of the offence, including the harm done, and the offender’s degree of responsibility, including his moral blameworthiness. In imposing sentence for this offence the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation must be emphasized.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: CONDEMS the accused to a jail term of two years of penitentiary; IMPOSES upon the accused a probation order for three years after his release from custody at the following conditions: • Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; • Abstain from communicating, directly, or indirectly with S.

A. and her family and to be in their physical presence; • Appear before the court when required to do so by the court; • Notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any chance of employment or occupation; • Report to a probation officer within five days of his release.

Thereafter, report whenever required by the probation officer and in the manner directed by the probation officer for the whole three years of the probation; • Continue and complete all therapies he has already entered into, and undertake to enter into, follow and complete all therapies and/or programs directed to by his probation officer and/or health professionals and/or his social workers; • Take all the medication prescribed by his doctors; • Refrain from using drugs, except under a validly obtained medical prescription. RENDERS an order pursuant to

Section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. RENDERS an order pursuant to Section 109(1) a) (3) of the Criminal Code prohibiting the possession of any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for life. RENDERS an order pursuant to

Section 743.21(2) of the Criminal Code prohibiting the offender from communicating directly or indirectly with S. A. and her family during the custodial period of the sentence. DISPENSES the accused to pay the victim surcharge due to detention.

__________________________________ LOUISE PROVOST, J.C.Q. M e Mathieu Castonguay For the Prosecution M e Fabrice Poirier For the Accused Date of hearing: October 19, 2021

ANNEXE Criminal Record

Based off of the criminal record produced by the prosecution, the sentence for the infraction committed on August 14, 1979 would be 30 days of imprisonment and not 30 months of imprisonment, as indicated in the annexe.