R v Rowlands (No 2); Director of Public Prosecutions v Rowlands
[2024] ACTSC 143
•7 May 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Rowlands (No 2); DPP v Rowlands |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 143 |
Hearing Date: | 29 April 2024 |
Decision Date: | 7 May 2024 |
Before: | Christensen AJ |
Decision: | See [83]. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving motor vehicle at police – aggravated dangerous driving – dishonestly ride in a motor vehicle without consent – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order cancelled – treatment and supervision part suspended after re-offending – s 80ZH review – s 80ZE imposition or resentence – rehabilitation progress – resentence – non-linear addiction recovery – combination of rehabilitation measures – suspended sentence and good behaviour order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act1900 (ACT) s 29A Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 107 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35, 80ZE Criminal Code2002 (ACT) ss 318, 324 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) ss 7, 7A |
Cases Cited: | DPP v Larkham [2023] ACTSC 68 DPP v Woods [2023] ACTSC 380 R v Blundell [2022] ACTSC 379 R v Burge (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 20 R v Cook (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 27 R v Crawford (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 166 R v McHughes (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 344 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 |
Texts Cited: | Bellaert et al, ‘Turning points towards drug addiction recovery; Contextualizing underlying dynamics of change’ (2022) 30(4) Addiction Research & Theory 294, 298-9 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Codie James Rowlands ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel T Kelliher ( Crown) C Duffy ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 189 of 2022 SCC 190 of 2022 SCC 224 of 2023 |
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
Introduction
On 7 November 2022 Mr Rowlands was sentenced to two years and eight months imprisonment. A sentence of imprisonment was suspended for a period of 18 months for the purposes of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (Treatment Order), to be followed by a good behaviour order for a period of nine months.
On 20 November 2023 the Treatment Order was cancelled. The matter comes before the court for finalisation of the review and a determination as to imposition or resentence.
In addition, Mr Rowlands is to be sentenced for an offence committed during the Treatment Order.
Background
The prosecution sought cancellation of the Treatment Order pursuant to s 80ZE of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) on the basis that Mr Rowlands was unwilling or unlikely to comply with the order and/or that Mr Rowlands was no longer eligible for a Treatment Order due to administration of the order having become impracticable.
The latter of this arose as Mr Rowlands was at that time remanded in custody following the commission of the offence that is also the subject of sentence. Cancellation on that basis was not opposed and the Treatment Order was cancelled.
On 20 November 2023 Mr Rowlands was also provided an opportunity by this court to engage with rehabilitation. Mr Rowlands has embraced that opportunity and his progress in doing so is of significance in the determination to be made at this stage.
Section 80ZE of the Sentencing Act
The cancellation having been pursuant to s 80ZE is relevant to emphasise as the considerations that now arise for the court differ to a cancellation pursuant to s 80ZD, which is on a basis of re-offending: R v Burge (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 20 at [16].
Being a cancellation pursuant to s 80ZE, “a preliminary consideration is the extent to which there was compliance with the Treatment Order and supervision part of the order. Having considered that, the court then turns to consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to resentence. If it is not, the suspended portion is imposed”: R v Cook (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 27 at [10].
Extent of compliance
As to the extent of Mr Rowlands' compliance with the Treatment Order, it must be regarded as being, overall, poor.
From the early stages of the order, Mr Rowlands did not engage successfully with treatment programs. This was despite numerous different programs having been tried, with there being no successful completion of any. By June 2023, it was said that Mr Rowlands had disengaged with Corrective Services. On 2 June 2023, he failed to appear at court and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
On 1 June 2023, Mr Rowlands committed an offence of riding in a stolen motor vehicle. On 7 June 2023, Mr Rowlands was arrested in relation to the warrant issued by the Supreme Court and was remanded in custody.
Prior to that remand, there was a period of some seven months during which Mr Rowlands had an opportunity to comply with the Treatment Order, and he did not do so.
Imposition or resentence
Turning then to whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to resentence. As already observed, Mr Rowlands embraced the opportunity afforded to him. His progress towards rehabilitation is of significance and a relevant circumstance that needs to be considered in determining the appropriate sentence orders at this time.
The prosecution did not seek imposition, but rather, appropriately acknowledged that rehabilitation is ultimately the best way to ensure protection of the community and that resentencing, as opposed to imposition, may be more appropriate for Mr Rowlands.
I agree. Where there has been a significant change in the subjective circumstances of the offender, an exercise in resentence is likely appropriate as it provides the court with an opportunity to ensure that the sentence order best meets the purposes of sentencing at the conclusion of the review process.
Resentence
Mr Rowlands is to be resentenced for the following offences, with these being the primary and associated offences that are the subject of the Treatment Order –
(a)Driving a motor vehicle at police, contrary to s 29A of the Crimes Act1900 (ACT), with a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment;
(b)Aggravated dangerous driving, contrary to s 7 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) by virtue of s 7A, with a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment, 300 penalty units or both; and
(c)Unlawful possession of stolen property, contrary to s 324 of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT), with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, 50 penalty units or both.
At the original sentence proceeding, Mr Rowlands was also convicted and sentenced in respect to three summary offences. These were offences of driving while right to drive is suspended, driving with a prescribed drug in blood and driving while using a mobile device. Good behaviour orders for varying periods were imposed.
In respect to the first of the summary offences, the offence of driving while suspended, the good behaviour order was for a period of six months from 7 November 2022 until 6 May 2023. No breach proceedings were initiated in respect to this order and no submission was made that there was a breach of this order. Accordingly, the sentence in respect to that order is to be considered finalised.
A similar outcome occurs in respect to the offence of using a mobile phone while driving. A good behaviour order for six months was imposed, with this order to commence on 7 September 2023. It expired on 7 March 2024. No breach proceedings were initiated in respect to this order and no submission was made that there was a breach of the order. It is therefore not the subject of the resentence exercise.
As to the other summary offence, that of driving with a prescribed drug in blood, a good behaviour order was in place at the time of the offending on 1 June 2023. This offence was committed just over a month into the four-month good behaviour order, which commenced on 7 May 2023. It is appropriate that this breach of the good behaviour order is dealt with as part of the resentence exercise: s 107 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT). The order expired on 6 September 2023.
The offences
On 28 December 2021 police attended at an apartment complex in Gowrie for an unrelated matter. Mr Rowlands pulled into the driveway of the apartment. He was driving a Kia Sorento and had a female passenger. Police saw Mr Rowlands using a mobile phone while he was driving.
A police check conducted on the number plate determined that the vehicle had been stolen from an address in Macarthur four days earlier.
Police followed Mr Rowlands and observed the vehicle being driven on the footpath of the green belt which surrounds the apartment complex. Police then lost sight of the vehicle, before next seeing it reversing up the driveway of a residence towards the garage door.
Police parked their vehicle in front of the driveway and got out. They signalled for Mr Rowlands to stop.
He did not do so. Rather, he drove towards the passenger side of the police vehicle, swerving at the last moment, narrowly avoiding a collision, and drove around the police vehicle. Mr Rowlands then drove away, with police observing the female passenger attempting to get out while the vehicle was in motion. The agreed facts provide that this conduct begins the aggravated dangerous driving offence.
Thereafter, Mr Rowlands drove the vehicle along Ashley Drive in Gowrie on the footpath adjacent to the southbound lanes. He was driving at speed. The traffic was moderate, and a number of pedestrians and cyclists were using footpaths in the area at this time.
Mr Rowlands then drove at high speed onto the southbound lanes against the flow of traffic. Police deployed a tyre-deflation device, which Mr Rowlands avoided by swerving off the road and onto the footpath. By this stage the female passenger was no longer in the vehicle.
Mr Rowlands then drove north onto Taverner Street in Wanniassa. He is described as driving at a high speed in the southbound lane toward Drakeford Drive. He was driving toward police, and police had to take evasive action to avoid a head-on collision.
Mr Rowlands then drove east onto Sulwood Drive, continuing to be at high speed. At this time, traffic was heavy with numerous vehicles on the road. Mr Rowlands swerved towards a stationary police vehicle at a roundabout. He deployed a fire extinguisher towards the police vehicle, causing a large cloud of white powder which briefly obstructed police vision.
He then swerved across double lines to overtake traffic. He was driving at a speed that was no less than 130 km/h, in posted 80 km/h zones. This occurred on no less than three occasions.
Mr Rowlands then turned right onto Gaunson Street, then onto Longmore Crescent. He accelerated at speed in the residential area, with it being a 60 km/h zone.
Mr Rowlands then hit two speed bumps, causing the rear of the vehicle to bounce violently as it travelled west on Longmore Crescent, before turning left onto Lobb Place, which is a dead-end street.
Police followed the vehicle into this street, cutting off the ability for Mr Rowlands to leave. Mr Rowlands then did a U-turn at the end of the street and accelerated at high speed towards the police. The agreed facts provide that this was the commencement of the driving at the police offence.
Mr Rowlands then caused the front driver's side of the vehicle he was driving to collide with the front driver's side of the police vehicle. This caused the Kia to violently lift onto two wheels on the passenger side before rolling side-over-side into the front yard of a residence on Longmore Crescent and coming to a rest on its roof.
The Kia narrowly avoided colliding with the residence as it rolled, with the photograph showing the close proximity to the front of the house. A young woman and her four-year-old child were at home at the time. All airbags deployed as a result of the collision.
Mr Rowlands crawled out of the window of the Kia and ran through the front yard of the residence and then onto Carr Crescent in Wanniassa. Police chased him on foot and were able to detain him and he was arrested.
The facts provided that Mr Rowlands appeared to be highly agitated and unable to keep still. His eyes were watery and bloodshot, and he spoke with slurred speech, making little sense when he did speak. Police suspected he was extremely intoxicated by illicit substances. When asked why he was driving, he replied, “You’se know I was fucking driving”.
At the time of the driving, Mr Rowlands was the holder of a provisional NSW licence. It was, though, suspended due to unpaid fines and demerit points.
Mr Rowlands was negative for an alcohol screening test. A blood sample subsequently taken at hospital returned a positive result for methylamphetamine.
Nature and circumstances of the offending: s 33(1)(a) of Sentencing Act
Mr Rowlands' driving on this day put not only the other vehicle users at risk but also put at risk the cyclists, pedestrians, his passenger for a time, and the police. There was dangerous driving at speed, driving on the incorrect side of the road and on footpaths, and the deployment of a fire extinguisher while driving. The driving was for a relatively lengthy period of time and distance. It also involved a failure to comply with a police request to stop, but this establishes it being an aggravated form of the offence and the applicable maximum penalty.
As to the driving at the police offence, in accordance with the agreed facts, this relates to the end of the driving conduct. This was very deliberate conduct and having regard to the consequences of the impact of the vehicles, have put the community members at risk. The police involved and their family and colleagues inevitably experienced the distress from their safety being put at such risk.
It was a conduct directed towards avoiding apprehension by the police and one that subsequently caused damage to the police vehicle. Any act of driving a motor vehicle at a police officer must be strongly denounced with a deterrent sentence imposed, with the applicable maximum penalty indicative of the seriousness of such an offence.
In addition, the offence of unlawful possession of stolen property is a serious example of this offence, relating as it does to the unlawful possession of a high-value item in a vehicle. The vehicle was damaged as a result of Mr Rowland's possession, causing financial implications and no doubt inconvenience to the owner.
In respect to all of these offences, it can be readily concluded that no penalty other than imprisonment is warranted.
Plea of guilty and remorse: ss 33(1)(i), (w), and 35 of Sentencing Act
The charges were committed for sentence to the Supreme Court. The pleas of guilty were entered at a late mention stage after provision of the brief of evidence and negotiations between the parties. A discount in the range of 20 per cent is appropriate.
At the time of the original sentence proceeding, Mr Rowlands expressed that his actions were “shocking” and “stupid”. He acknowledged the victims and verbalised the risk he had posed to other potential victims by the offending.
Sentence
As to the offending that is the subject of sentence, on 2 June 2023 Mr Rowlands rode in a motor vehicle belonging to someone else without that person's consent. This is an offence contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), and it carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, 500PU, or both.
The offending involved Mr Rowlands being a passenger in a Land Rover that had been taken by an unknown person early on the morning of 29 May in Nicholls. At the time that Mr Rowlands got into the vehicle, at about 12.30pm on 1 June, the vehicle was parked outside an address in Taylor. Police were executing a search warrant at the address when Mr Rowlands approached. Upon seeing police, he yelled words to the effect of “oh fuck” and when told by the police to stop, he ran and got into the passenger seat of the Land Rover.
The Land Rover took off at speed and police pursued it. There was a police pursuit in both ACT and NSW, before tyre-deflection devices were successfully deployed on the Monaro Highway. The Land Rover went into the suburb of Gilmore and was found abandoned by police at about 1.30 pm.
Mr Rowlands was identified as a passenger in the vehicle from police observations of him.
The vehicle that he rode in sustained damage to the front area, but it appears from the photographs that it was still able to be driven. The owner of the vehicle will have experienced financial implications and inconvenience, and it is likely of little consolation to them that Mr Rowlands' role was as a passenger, rather than the driver who was directly responsible for the damage to the car.
Nature and circumstances of the offending: s 33(1)(a) of Sentencing Act
Being a passenger in a dishonestly taken motor vehicle is the least serious of the types of offences that establish an offence pursuant to s 318 of the Criminal Code: see R v McHughes (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 344 at [34].
As the prosecution appropriately submitted, the factors of aggravation that occurred here are attributable to the driver of the vehicle, rather than Mr Rowlands who was the passenger. However, his presence as the rider in the vehicle was for the purposes of avoiding engagement with police and he was in the vehicle for a not insignificant period, being a little over an hour.
Plea of guilty and remorse
Mr Rowlands pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court and was committed for sentence to the Supreme Court. His plea of guilty followed an initial plea of not guilty with a hearing date listed. The prosecution informed the court that negotiations occurred in advance of the hearing such that witnesses were not required, and there was utilitarian value in that sense. A discount in the range of 20 per cent is appropriate.
At the time of the cancellation of the Treatment Order, Mr Rowlands expressed in relation to this offence that he had reacted by running from police as he feared arrest. He acknowledged that he should not have done so and said that he was very angry with himself when he got into the passenger seat of the car.
Subjective circumstances
Background
Mr Rowlands recently turned 27 years old. He was aged 26 years at the time of the most recent offending and aged 24 years at the time of the original offending.
He was born in NSW and spent most of his childhood living on the South Coast between the homes of his parents who were separated. He has positive relationships with his biological parents and siblings.
He was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a child and adolescent and was treated with medication until he was an adult, then he chose instead to use illicit substances. He has had episodes of mental health challenges, with these potentially related to his substance use.
When he was 18 years, Mr Rowlands relocated to Canberra for employment.
He is in a relationship of some four years’ duration. They have no dependents and reside together in his partner's family home. Mr Rowlands' partner is employed and detests his illicit substance abuse.
This abuse commenced when he was 13 years of age with cannabis. He began methylamphetamine use at 18 years of age. This was initially only on weekends, but by 24 years he was using daily and had ceased employment. In addition to cannabis and methylamphetamine, he has used other substances.
Criminal history
Mr Rowlands' criminal history is reflective of his gradual descent into addiction and his progress of rehabilitation from this addiction.
Prior to the offences that are the subject of the Treatment Order and the most recent offending in June 2023 he had little criminal history. Given this, he cannot be afforded significant leniency, particularly as he does have previous examples of driving offences in the ACT for which good behaviour orders were imposed. He has also previously been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment for an offence of assault. His first appearance in court was in NSW for resisting police and offensive behaviour committed in 2016 when aged 19 years.
The current offences are the most serious offending committed by Mr Rowlands, and he does demonstrate capability to not offend for lengthy periods of time. He has not re-offended since June of 2023, and before that, December 2021.
Rehabilitation
The Treatment Order was the first opportunity that Mr Rowlands had to address his illicit substance abuse through a comprehensive program support. To an extent, it is unsurprising that in those circumstances he struggled to complete the programs that are the subject of the order, not having been previously exposed to the rigours of such a program.
It is well recognised by the courts that addiction recovery is a non-linear process. This is reflective of academic consideration of rehabilitation, including, for example, Bellaert et al, ‘Turning points towards drug addiction recovery; Contextualizing underlying dynamics of change’ (2022) 30(4) Addiction Research & Theory 294, 298-9, in which it was explained with reference to the participants in that study –
For some participants, one episode of addiction treatment was sufficient to act as a catalyst for sustained change. For most other respondents, however, treatment did not always immediately lead to visible (behavioural) changes. A combination of various residential stays, participation in mutual aid groups, and/or outpatient programs could trigger changes in many ways.
Mr Rowlands provides an example of the value of the combination of interventions to trigger change. During his initial challenges with the Treatment Order, when returned to custody, he completed the Solaris program. Upon his release, he engaged with and completed the Canberra Recovery Hub 12-week day program. The case manager from the program described Mr Rowlands as someone who showed compassion, respect, and gratitude to staff and fellow peers and that he has been a great asset to the Canberra Recovery Hub community.
Mr Rowlands has maintained engagement with counselling services. He is described by his counsellor as having “good insight and a willingness to make positive changes in his life”.
He has re-established a good relationship with his partner and has been a valued member of his partner and her family's household since his release from custody. His mother-in-law describes that Mr Rowlands has “learnt from his previous experiences and is making the most of these new opportunities. He has left the past where it should be and has made a concerted effort to disassociate himself from people and influencers who do not have his best interests in mind”.
Mr Rowlands has also re-engaged with employment. He identified his previous employment field to be a risk to his sobriety and has gained full-time employment with a removalist company instead. His employer provided a letter of support in which he describes:
Codie was honest from the very beginning before commencing employment about his criminal and drug history. I would be lying if I said I didn't have some worries as a businessman, of course, but I could really see Codie was trying his best.
I had good faith in Codie from the very beginning, but he has well and truly superseded my expectations. His work ethic is unmatched. He is exceptionally polite and respectful to clients. He always offers a helping hand, both at work as well as before and after hours every single day. He is early every single day, has been employed and done everything asked of him beyond expectations.
I hope to keep Codie employed for as long as I'm in this business and any after it. A worker like Codie is very hard to come by, and I do hope this letter can help show the court and Codie just how well he is doing.
While on bail, Mr Rowlands has complied with supervision expectations and returned negative results from urinalysis testing. He has completed his disqualification periods and is now licensed.
Overall, Mr Rowlands has demonstrated significant and solid gains in his rehabilitation. There is reason to be optimistic. However, the gains are of relatively short duration, and it remains, as the prosecution submitted, that the prospects of rehabilitation ought to still be characterised as guarded.
In all of the circumstances, a return to full-time imprisonment at this time would disrupt rehabilitation such that the purpose of sentencing to protect the community would be undermined. Ongoing supervision though, and a deterrent sentence plainly remains appropriate.
Other relevant sentencing considerations
Current sentencing practice
The prosecution helpfully attempted to assist the court in respect to current sentencing practice for the dishonestly ride in a motor vehicle offence, while also acknowledging the limitations that other authorities can provide. I have had regard to the authorities identified by the prosecution, namely, DPP v Woods [2023] ACTSC 380, DPP v Larkham [2023] ACTSC 68, and R v Blundell [2022] ACTSC 379, albeit, as the prosecution submitted, the comparative value of them is limited given the distinction in the circumstances of the offending.
I otherwise observe that the original sentences that Refshauge AJ imposed are informative as to current sentencing practice for those offences. In determining those sentences, Refshauge AJ had regard to R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 and R v Crawford (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 166, which I have also considered.
Conditional liberty
At the time of the offence the subject of sentence was committed, Mr Rowlands was subject to the Treatment Order. The offence was committed just short of seven months into the order.
As the prosecution submitted, betrayal of the opportunity for rehabilitation offered through a community based order is regarded very seriously and should weigh against the offender: R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 at [15] (Tran). While Tran was concerned with opportunity by way of probation, parole or provisional release on bail, there is no reason why this principle should not apply equally to the opportunity on a Treatment Order.
I have regard to this aggravating factor in determining the appropriate sentence.
Totality
The sentences to be imposed require application of totality considerations in terms of the orders to be made for the individual sentences, including the breach matter and the overall sentence to be imposed.
Pre-sentence custody
A number of periods of pre-sentence custody are relevant.
Prior to the original sentence, Mr Rowlands was in custody solely in respect to the offences subject to the Treatment Order for a total of 155 days. During the term of the Treatment Order, he served time in custody from 15 November 2022 to 29 November, and from 7 December to 21 December 2022. A total of 196 days of pre-sentence custody is solely attributable to the original offences.
From 7 June 2023 to cancellation and bail being granted on 20 November 2023, Mr Rowlands was subject to a provisional cancellation of the Treatment Order and remanded in custody on the sentence offence. This is a period of 166 days.
Orders
For those reasons, the following orders are made –
(1)The conviction of Codie James Rowlands of driving a motor vehicle at police (CAN 12217/2021) is confirmed and a sentence of 24 months imprisonment, reduced from 30 months on the account of the plea of guilty, is imposed, to commence on 11 May 2023 and end on 10 May 2025.
(2)The conviction of Codie James Rowlands of aggravated, furious, reckless, dangerous driving (CAN 12223/2021) is confirmed and a sentence of 12 months imprisonment, reduced from 15 months imprisonment on the account of the plea of guilty, is imposed, to commence on 11 November 2024 and conclude on 10 November 2025.
(3)The conviction of Codie James Rowlands of unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN 7296/2022) is confirmed and a sentence of four months imprisonment, reduced from five months on the account of the plea of guilty, is imposed, to commence on 11 September 2025 and end on 10 January 2026.
(4)The breach of the Good Behaviour Order on 7 May 2023 imposed for the conviction of driving with prescribed drug in oral fluid (CAN 12219/2021) is proved, with no further action to be taken on the breach.
(5)The total sentence for these offences is two years and eight months, to be suspended from 7 May 2024 and end on 10 January 2026.
(6)Codie James Rowlands is required to sign an undertaking to comply with his good behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from 07 May 2024 for a period of 20 months and three days until 10 January 2026. There will be an additional probation condition that he accept the supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions.
(7)Codie James Rowlands is convicted of the offence of ride motor vehicle without consent (CAN 5731/2023) and sentenced to six months imprisonment, reduced from 225 days on account of the plea of guilty. The sentence is to be wholly suspended from 07 May 2024.
(8)In relation to the wholly suspended sentence (CAN 5731/2023), Mr Rowlands is required to sign an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from 7 May 2024 for a period of 12 months until 06 May 2025 with an additional probation condition that he accept supervision for that period or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate.
| I certify that the preceding eighty-three [83] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen. Associate: Date: |
7
9
5