R. v. Lowney

2015 BCSC 1721 R. v. Lowney IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Lowney, 2015 BCSC 1721 Date: 20150702 Dockets: 61917-4; 61917-5; 63320-2; 63321-2 Registry: Chilliwack Regina v. Sheldon James Lowney Restriction on Publication: A publication ban has been mandatorily imposed under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code restricting the publication, broadcasting or transmission in any way of evidence that could identify the victim or a witness. This publication ban applies indefinitely unless otherwise ordered. Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice B.M. Joyce Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: E.P. Sabourin Counsel for the Accused: J.R. Ray Place and Date of Hearing: Chilliwack, B.C. June 17, 2015 Place and Date of Sentence: Chilliwack, B.C. July 2, 2015 [1] THE COURT: By way of introduction, Mr. Lowney has pleaded guilty to four criminal charges in four Indictments and is before me for sentencing. [2] The charges to which he has pleaded guilty are as follows: · First, between July 11, 2012 and September 13, 2012, he did for a sexual purpose touch directly or indirectly, with a part of his body or with an object, the body of A.K., a person under the age of 16 years, contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. That charge is set out in Indictment 61917-5. · Secondly, that on or about February 17, 2012, he did for a sexual purpose, touch directly or indirectly, with a part of his body or with an object, the body of C.S., a person under the age of 16 years, contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code. That is Indictment 63320-2. · Thirdly, that on December 7, 2012, he did possess marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. That charge is set out in Indictment 61917-4. · Fourthly, that on December 7, 2012, being at large on a recognizance, he failed to comply with the recognizance by having contact with K.F., contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code. That is in Indictment 63321-2. [3] I will review the circumstances of the offences as briefly as is appropriate. [4] In May 2012, A.K., who was 15 years old, accessed a social media site called "Nexopia" where she met Mr. Lowney, who was then 21 years old. They communicated via the social media site and via text messaging for a period of time during which they engaged in sexually explicit communications including requests by Mr. Lowney that A.K. engage in sexual acts with other girls. During these communications, Mr. Lowney offered A.K. money but A.K. did not accept this proposal. Eventually, Mr. Lowney and A.K. met in person. There were four occasions when they got together. [5] The first was on May 12, 2012 when they met and talked, but nothing of consequence happened. They met a second time on June 11, 2012 at his apartment in Mission, British Columbia, when they engaged in sexual intercourse. A.K. was of an age where she was unable to lawfully give her consent to the sexual activity. [6] Sometime between July 1st and 10th, 2012, they got together again at his apartment for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. Mr. Lowney told A.K. that he wished to video record her performing oral sex on him. Initially, A.K. was not particularly interested in that idea, but Mr. Lowney told her he would give her $100 and also told her that the video recording was for himself only and that he would delete the video recording after they watched it together. Mr. Lowney video recorded the two of them while A.K. performed fellatio on him. After watching the video together, Mr. Lowney returned A.K. to Chilliwack where she lived. [7] On September 13, 2012, Mr. Lowney picked A.K. up from a school in Chilliwack and took her to his apartment. She performed fellatio on him and he engaged in anal intercourse. A.K. fellated him again during which he ejaculated into her mouth. Mr. Lowney video recorded these sexual acts. He again gave A.K. $100. [8] Mr. Lowney downloaded the videos he had made using his camera onto his computer hard drive. His computer was a tower computer, not a laptop, so it did not have any built-in screen. In order to play any videos stored on the computer hard drive, including ordinary movies, Mr. Lowney connected his computer tower to a television set using an HDMI cable. [9] Sometime between September 13, 2012 and November 2012, Mr. Lowney's girlfriend at the time, K.F., gained access to the videos he had made of A.K. and him. It appears that K.F. took still photographs of some of the scenes depicted in the videos while the videos were playing on the television monitor. Mr. Lowney denies any knowledge of this and says it must have happened when K.F. was alone in his apartment. [10] In November 2012, A.K. received a Facebook "friend" request from a person purporting to be A.S. A.K. added A.S. to her Facebook account as a friend. Unknown to A.K. at that time, A.S. was an alias used by K.F. to establish a Facebook account. On November 3, 2012, K.F., posing as A.S., tried unsuccessfully to send a photo or photos to A.K.'s cell phone and her Facebook account. Ultimately, K.F. posted the photos on the A.S. Facebook account where friends could see them and also sent copies to one or more of A.K.'s family members. The photos were the photos that K.F. had made by taking photographs of the television screen depicting Mr. Lowney and A.K. performing sexual acts together. [11] A.K.'s mother became aware of the photos that had been posted on Facebook and contacted the police. The police accessed the A.S. Facebook account where the photos were posted. [12] On December 7, 2012, the police obtained a search warrant for Mr. Lowney's residence as well as for electronic devices in the residence. When the police executed the warrant, Mr. Lowney was unclothed and looked like he had just come from the shower. He was allowed to dress and asked for a jacket. When the police checked the pockets of the jacket to make sure no weapons were in the pockets, the police found a quantity of cash totalling $2,585. [13] During the search of the residence, the police found a total of 318 grams of marihuana and paraphernalia consistent with drug trafficking. The police seized Mr. Lowney's computer, some USB drives, the cash, the marihuana and other evidence regarding the offence of trafficking. The drug charge obviously arises out of the seizure of the marihuana and other evidence of trafficking. [14] Also during the search of the residence, the police discovered K.F. hiding in a closet. It turns out that on November 20, 2012, as a result of a complaint made by K.F., Mr. Lowney had entered into a recognizance that included a condition that he must have no contact with K.F. This is the basis of the breach of recognizance charge. [15] On the hard drive of Mr. Lowney's computer, the police found videos that he made of himself and A.K. They also found another video that he had made of himself and another young female, C.S., engaged in sex acts including vaginal intercourse and fellatio. This offence was committed in February 2012. C.S. was 15 years old at the time, and also was of an age where she could not lawfully consent to the sexual activity. It appears that C.S. was not aware that she was video recorded by Mr. Lowney on that occasion. [16] I turn to Mr. Lowney's personal circumstances. [17] Mr. Lowney was born January 21, 1991 and was, therefore, 21 years old at the time of the offences. He is now 24 years old. He has no prior criminal record. [18] Mr. Lowney has lived his entire life in Mission, British Columbia. He had a positive upbringing. Both his parents worked in a local shake and shingle mill and at age 17, Mr. Lowney began to work at the same mill. [19] When he was 18 years old, Mr. Lowney moved out on his own. He obtained his own accommodation and took a course as a warehouse worker. He lived with a roommate until he was about 19 and one-half years old when finances forced him to return to live with his parents. After about six months, Mr. Lowney decided that he missed the freedom of living on his own so he moved from his parents' home again. He had a part-time job only and in order to remain independent he turned to selling marihuana to support himself. [20] At the time he committed the offences, Mr. Lowney was leading what his counsel described as a high-risk lifestyle. He had moved from his parents' home into an apartment of his own so he had lost the stable environment that he enjoyed while living with his parents. He became involved in partying, drug use, drug dealing and promiscuity. His counsel submits that Mr. Lowney was relatively young, immature and lost his moral compass. [21] Mr. Lowney was released on bail on December 19, 2012 after spending 13 days in custody following his arrest for the sexual interference with A.K., the breach of recognizance, and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. [22] His parents supported his release by providing their home to him to live in while on bail. Mr. Lowney was placed on a number of restrictive conditions of bail including a curfew. The police closely monitored his curfew and there is no suggestion of any breach of the conditions of bail by Mr. Lowney. [23] Mr. Lowney was arrested on the sexual interference charge concerning C.S. on October 1, 2014 and spent one day in jail before being released on bail. [24] While obviously being disappointed in their son's actions, Mr. Lowney's parents continue to be supportive towards him and will provide him with a place to live when he is released from jail. [25] Mr. Lowney's counsel advises that Mr. Lowney particularly regrets the hurt that A.K. suffered when the video that he made of him and A.K., which he had promised to delete, was found by K.F. and posted on Facebook and distributed to A.K.'s family. Although he maintains that this distribution of the video was without his knowledge or involvement, he realizes that but for the fact that he had engaged in the sexual conduct with A.K. and made the video, A.K. would not have suffered the embarrassment and pain that ultimately resulted. [26] With respect to the impact of the offences on the victims, A.K. provided a victim impact statement in which she stated that this matter has left her feeling extremely embarrassed, ashamed, confused, violated and lied to. Particularly painful to her is the fact that the images of her and Mr. Lowney committing sexual acts were displayed to her friends and family because they were posted on Facebook. A.K. expresses feelings of depression, anxiety, and loss of trust in other persons. [27] It is clear that this matter has had a tremendous emotional impact on this young woman for circumstances for which she cannot be held responsible. Even though the age difference was only six years, she was the child and Mr. Lowney was the adult. [28] With regard to C.S., she was an uncooperative witness for the Crown. She was quite set against testifying against Mr. Lowney and did not provide any victim impact statement. C.S. is apparently a troubled young woman who was having considerable difficulties in her life when she became associated with Mr. Lowney. [29] I will turn next to the sentencing parameters. [30] Considering the date of its commission, the offence of sexual interference with A.K. contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code has a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year and a maximum of ten years. For the offence of sexual interference with C.S., because it was committed before the mandatory minimum for that offence was increased, there is a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 45 days. [31] The charge of possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has no minimum sentence and a possible maximum of life imprisonment. [32] The charge of failing to comply with a recognizance contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code carries a maximum term of imprisonment of two years. [33] The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. I will not read all of those sections into the record, but I do of course bear them in mind. Of particular significance in this case is s. 718.01 which provides as follows: 718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. [34] That section applies to the two charges contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code to which Mr. Lowney has pleaded guilty. However, while denunciation and deterrence must receive primary consideration, this does not mean in my view that the principles of restraint and rehabilitation are to be ignored altogether, particularly in the case of a relatively youthful first offender. [35] Turning to the positions of the parties, the parties are not widely apart in their sentencing positions. Both parties submit that a term of imprisonment in the provincial system to be followed by a term of probation would be appropriate, although they differ somewhat on what they say the length of the jail sentence should be, and the defence disagrees on some of the terms of probation suggested by the Crown. [36] The Crown also seeks a number of ancillary orders including a mandatory firearms prohibition on the drug count, a mandatory DNA order, and a mandatory lifetime SOIRA order. The defence takes no position on those. [37] The Crown submits that a global sentence of two years less one day to be followed by a period of probation for three years would be appropriate. In arriving at the global jail sentence, Crown submits that the following sentences should be imposed for the individual offences after giving Mr. Lowney credit of 20 days for the 13 days he spent in custody following his arrest in December 2012, and credit of two days for the time he spent in custody following his arrest in October 2014 on the charge relating to C.S.: 1. On the charge of sexual interference with A.K., 20 months less one day, together with three years' probation. 2. On the charge of sexual interference with C.S., 15 months concurrent, together with three years' probation. 3. On the charge of possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, four months consecutive to the sentences for sexual interference. 4. On the breach of recognizance charge, a suspended sentence and two years' probation. [38] The Crown submits that it would be appropriate to impose concurrent sentences for the two sexual offences based on the totality principle so that the total actual sentence does not result in a federal penitentiary sentence. [39] Defence submits that a global sentence of 18 months followed by two to three years' probation would be appropriate. He arrives at that global sentence by suggesting the following sentences for the individual counts: 1. First, 12-month concurrent sentences on the two sexual interference counts. 2. A five-month sentence for possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking to run consecutive to the sexual offence sentences. 3. A 30-day sentence for the breach of recognizance to run consecutive to the other sentences. [40] The Crown submits there are a number of aggravating as well as mitigating factors that need to be considered. [41] With regard to the aggravating factors, Crown refers first to s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code. Also, even though the Crown seeks concurrent sentences, Mr. Lowney has pleaded guilty to counts of sexual interference with two separate individuals. [42] Further aggravating factors include the nature of the physical contact with the victims in that it involved intercourse, fellatio and anal intercourse, at least with A.K. [43] On the other hand, defence points to the fact that there was an absence of physical violence, in its ordinary sense, used against the victims, although it is in no way suggested that the fact that the victims lacked the ability to consent but may have nonetheless acquiesced in fact should minimize the crimes. Rather, defence says it is the lack of actual physical violence that is a factor that forms part of the surrounding circumstances that should be taken into account. [44] The Crown suggests that the offence concerning A.K. involved a degree of grooming because Mr. Lowney engaged in internet and other communications for a time including sexually explicit suggestions before engaging in the criminal conduct. The defence disputes this suggestion saying that Mr. Lowney was truly looking for a girlfriend. [45] Given the fact that the age difference between A.K. and Mr. Lowney is not as large as in a number of cases involving grooming and predatory conduct, I am not prepared to find that there was in fact grooming or predatory conduct in the sense that is often present when much older men prey on young vulnerable children. [46] I do accept that providing A.K. with money and marihuana is an aggravating circumstance. I also accept that video recording the sexual activity with A.K. is an aggravating circumstance of considerable significance. [47] While Mr. Lowney denies even showing the video to K.F., I find that in fact he admitted to doing so in a text exchange after the fact with A.K. I do not accept Mr. Lowney's explanation that he lied to A.K. during those text messages when he told her that he showed the video to K.F. However, I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven that Mr. Lowney participated in or was aware of K.F.'s actions in subsequently playing the video on the television screen and making still images of what was being played and then distributing those images. [48] The Crown also says that it is an aggravating circumstance that Mr. Lowney also video recorded the sexual encounter with C.S. without her knowledge. However, that aggravating factor is moderated somewhat by the fact that there is no evidence that he showed that video to any person or kept it for any purpose other than his own use. [49] There are a number of mitigating factors in this case. Mr. Lowney is a relatively young man with no prior criminal record. He has pleaded guilty to the offences and saved the need for a jury trial and the further harm that a trial would have caused, particularly to A.K. [50] Mr. Lowney has the support of his parents who appear to be honest, caring individuals who are prepared to do whatever they can to ensure that Mr. Lowney regains his moral compass. [51] Since being released on bail, Mr. Lowney has taken steps towards rehabilitation by removing himself from the lifestyle that helped to contribute to his offending. He has performed well under the supervision imposed by his bail conditions. I am satisfied that Mr. Lowney is remorseful for having engaged in this activity and having caused harm to his young victims. [52] With regard to the case law provided to me by the parties, the Crown refers to two cases. [53] The first is R. v. Aimee, 2010 BCSC 1463 [Aimee] where the 29-year-old offender was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual interference, two counts of communicating with persons under the age of 18 for the purposes of facilitating a sexual assault, and one count of obstructing justice. The victims were 14 and 16 at the time. The offender received effective concurrent sentences of three years on each of the sexual interference convictions, 16 months concurrent on each of the internet luring convictions, and 12 months consecutive on the obstruction charge. The global sentence was therefore four years. He received credit of 31 months for time spent in custody prior to sentencing and received an actual global sentence of 17 months in jail to be followed by three years' probation. [54] In Aimee, the Court noted that the primary objectives of sentencing for these offences are denunciation and deterrence. The offender there was assessed as a fairly low risk to re-offend over the short term and an increased risk over the long term if he did not receive psychological treatment. [55] Mitigating factors included the fact that he had no prior criminal record and a supportive family. Aggravating factors included the fact that his actions were planned and predatory. After a review of a number of authorities, the Court stated at para. 64 that "sexual interference is a serious offence for which a term of imprisonment of up to four years may be imposed ." [56] The second case referred to by the Crown is R. v. Young, 2010 N.J. No. 373 (P.C.) a decision from the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court. In that case, the 22-year-old offender was convicted following a trial of sexual interference and sexual assault for having sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old child on one occasion. Mr. Young had a turbulent and dysfunctional childhood. He had anger management issues and was assessed as having low cognitive ability. The Court imposed concurrent sentences of 14 months for each offence to be followed by two years' probation. The Court in that case held that Kienapple did not apply. [57] Defence referred me to four cases. [58] In R. v. P.D.W., 2015 BCSC 660 the offender was convicted after trial of one count of sexual touching of a 14-year-old girl and one count of counselling her to touch him. The offender was 49 years old at the time of the offences. The victim was a friend of his stepdaughter. The offender had family support from his mother, two adult sons, and friends. A psychological report assessed him as being at moderate risk for sexual re-offending. [59] Mitigating circumstances included the lack of any prior criminal record and the support he had from his family and community. Aggravating factors included the fact that the complainant was only 14, the large age difference between the offender and the victim, the nature of the physical contact which included digital penetration, and the fact that the offender knew the victim was intoxicated. In addition, he was in somewhat of a position of trust because the victim was having a sleepover at his home with his stepdaughter at the time of the offence. In addition, he had been grooming the victim for more than a month before the offence and knew she was vulnerable. The Court imposed concurrent sentences of 15 months' imprisonment on each count to be followed by three years' probation. [60] In R. v. D'Argis, 2011 BCSC 842 the offender, who was 19 at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference with respect to two vulnerable 13-year-old girls. The sexual activity included fellatio. The victims were living in foster care and were susceptible to the offender's offer of cigarettes in exchange for oral sex. The offender was described as being of low average intelligence and having a lack of social awareness and skills which contributed to his offending. He had no prior criminal record and had family support. A psychiatric assessment was positive with respect to his prospects for rehabilitation. The Court imposed concurrent nine-month sentences to be followed by two years' probation. I note that in this case all of the offences occurred before the mandatory minimum sentence was raised to one year. [61] R. v. J.H., 2014 BCSC 2028 involved a 79-year-old offender who was convicted of touching an 11-year-old for a sexual purpose and of sexual assault upon that victim. The offender was described as a recluse or hermit. He had multiple medical issues and no criminal record. In imposing a sentence of nine months' imprisonment to be followed by two years' probation, Mr. Justice Butler described the circumstances of the offence and the offender as "truly unique." As a consequence, I do not find that case to be of much assistance. [62] Finally, the defence referred to R. v. E.M.Q., 2015 BCSC 201. That case deals extensively with the constitutionality of the current minimum sentence for sexual interference. In that case, the offender was convicted of one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference, but the Court entered a stay on the charge of sexual assault pursuant to Kienapple. In that case, the victim was 14. The 21-year-old Aboriginal offender tried to kiss the victim and touch her breasts and vagina, but she resisted. Eventually, the offender succeeded in touching her on her clothing in the pelvic area above her vagina. The Court concluded a sentence of 13 months' imprisonment followed by two years' probation would be the proper sentence but granted one-for-one credit of the 227 days the offender had spent in custody resulting in an actual sentence of 168 days in jail followed by two years' probation. [63] The foregoing case authorities are instructive but, as has often been said, sentencing is an individual exercise and the sentence in any particular case must be decided on the basis of not only the statutory parameters and guidelines provided by other cases but by the particular circumstances of the offence at hand and the particular circumstances of the offender in question. [64] To repeat somewhat, there are a number of aggravating circumstances in this case that must be considered: · The age of the victims which create a mandatory aggravating circumstance; · The fact that Mr. Lowney took advantage of not one but two young women; · The nature of the sexual conduct including vaginal and anal intercourse as well as oral sex; · The fact that Mr. Lowney video recorded the sexual activity, and in the case of C.S., without her knowledge; · The fact that he provided marihuana and money to A.K. [65] However, as I indicated, I am not satisfied that Mr. Lowney engaged in grooming or predatory conduct. He took advantage of young women when he knew he ought not to, but I am not satisfied that he preyed upon them in the same way as was found in some of the cases to which I have been referred. [66] Against the aggravating factors are a number of mitigating factors that must also be put into the balance: · Mr. Lowney's relative youth and lack of criminal record; · the guilty plea; · Mr. Lowney has family support through loving parents who continue to be prepared to provide a stable home and environment for him upon his release from jail; · Mr. Lowney has demonstrated a positive reaction to the supervisory conditions while on bail which speaks well for his rehabilitation; and · I believe Mr. Lowney appreciates the harm of his actions towards the two young victims and he is remorseful. [67] Most of counsels' submissions focussed on the sexual offences. The offence of possession for the purposes of trafficking is also a serious offence which requires a meaningful sentence. I believe that a sentence of between three and six months in jail would be within the range of sentence for that offence in these circumstances. [68] Taking into account all of the circumstances and bearing in mind a significant jail sentence for the sexual interference offences is required in order adequately to address the principles of denunciation and deterrence, I have concluded that the following sentences would be appropriate before consideration of time spent in custody: · For the offence of sexual interference with A.K., 15 months. · For the offence of sexual interference with C.S., 14 months. · For the offence of possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, four months. · For the offence of breach of recognizance, 30 days. [69] Mr. Lowney is entitled to credit of 20 days with regard to the sentence for the offence of sexual interference with A.K., and two days for the other sexual interference offence. The actual sentences will therefore be 14 months and ten days and 13 months and 28 days respectively. Those sentences are to be served concurrent with one another. The other sentences are to be consecutive to the sentences for sexual interference and consecutive to each other. The actual global sentence will therefore be 19 months and ten days. [70] I will also impose a term of probation of two years. I agree with most of the terms for probation sought by the Crown with the exception of the suggested limitation on any contact with persons under the age of 16 and the suggested prohibition from possessing devices that can access the internet. As I have said, I am not satisfied that Mr. Lowney engaged in predatory conduct and I am of the view that he will likely not re-offend. I do not see the need for these restrictions. [71] Mr. Lowney, would you please stand. [72] Mr. Lowney, even though you were a man of only 21 years of age, you let your life spin out of control and you took advantage of two young women. That does not reflect the kind of person your parents raised you to be. You will have to work to earn their respect back. In the meantime, you have to face the consequences of your actions, which consequences demand that you spend a significant period of time in jail. The sentences that I am imposing for a man of your age with no record are, in my view, a significant period of time in jail. [73] I therefore sentence you to a global sentence of 19 months and ten days in jail. The individual sentences are as I have set out earlier. [74] I also sentence you to a period of probation of two years following your incarceration. The terms of your probation will be as follows: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2. Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court. 3. Notify the Court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the Court or your probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. 4. Report to a probation officer within 72 hours of your release and report thereafter when and as required by your probation officer. 5. Do not possess or consume any illicit drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription. 6. Do not contact or communicate directly or indirectly with A.K. 7. Do not contact or communicate directly or indirectly K.F. 8. Attend, participate in and complete to the satisfaction of your probation officer any assessment, counselling, treatment and programming as directed by your probation officer. 9. Make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain employment approved by your probation officer. 10. Provide the name and contact information of your employer or educational institution if you are going to school to your probation officer. [75] You may be seated, sir. [76] I also make the following ancillary orders: 1. An order under s. 743.2(1) of the Criminal Code that while serving the custodial portion of his sentence, Mr. Lowney must not communicate directly or indirectly with A.K. or K.F. 2. A DNA order, which is mandatory because of the convictions under s. 151 of the Criminal Code and s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 3. A mandatory ten-year firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code as a result of the conviction under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 4. [SOIRA order] [77] In the circumstances, I will exercise my discretion and waive the victim fine surcharge. [78] Hopefully that covers everything. Is there anything else? [79] MR. RAY: Forfeiture. [80] THE COURT: Oh, the forfeiture order. A forfeiture order will be made and counsel can work out the precise details of that. Thank you. [81] MS. SABOURIN: Thank you. I do have the SOIRA order and will pass that up. [82] THE COURT: Thank you. "B.M. Joyce J."