Koberstein v The King
[2025] NZCA 185
•22 May 2025 at 10.00 am
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA563/2024 |
| BETWEEN | WARREN GEORGE MICHAEL KOBERSTEIN |
| AND | THE KING |
| Hearing: | 25 March 2025 |
Court: | Ellis, Dunningham and Harvey JJ |
Counsel: | P J Morgan KC for Appellant |
Judgment: | 22 May 2025 at 10.00 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.
BMr Koberstein must surrender himself to the Prison Director at Tongariro Prison (or such other location as may be directed by Corrections in writing) by 10 am within two days from the release of this judgment to complete the sentence of imprisonment imposed by Judge Snell.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Harvey J)
Introduction
Warren Koberstein is a 76-year-old farmer with over 40 years’ experience working on his sheep and beef farm in Mangakino. However, he has had ongoing and serious animal welfare issues with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) concerning his treatment of both sheep and cattle.[1] On 22 March 2024, he was convicted on a representative charge of wilful ill-treatment of an animal, in relation to 33 ewes;[2] five charges of wilful ill-treatment of five separate ewes; a charge of reckless ill-treatment of one ewe;[3] a charge of keeping an animal alive when it was suffering unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress, in relation to one ewe;[4] and three representative charges of failing to comply with animal welfare obligations in relation to 834 ewes, 30 heifers and a further 86 cattle.[5]
[1]This includes Mr Koberstein’s convictions for animal welfare offending in relation to events on the farm in 2018: Ministry for Primary Industries v Koberstein [2021] NZDC 3549; and Koberstein v R [2024] NZHC 316.
[2]Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 28(1)(c) and (3)(a). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment and/or a $100,000 fine.
[3]Section 28A(1)(b) and (3)(a). Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment and/or a $75,000 fine.
[4]Sections 14(1)(a) and 25(a). Maximum penalty: 12 months’ imprisonment and/or $50,000 fine.
[5]Sections 10, 12(a) and 25(a). Maximum penalty: 12 months’ imprisonment and/or $50,000 fine.
On 9 August 2024, Judge Snell sentenced Mr Koberstein to two years and four months’ imprisonment for this offending, which occurred in 2019.[6] The Judge also imposed an indefinite disqualification order prohibiting Mr Koberstein from owning or exercising control over farm animals.[7]
[6]R v Koberstein [2024] NZDC 18924 [judgment under appeal].
[7]At [52]–[59] and [77].
Mr Koberstein appeals this sentence on three grounds.[8] First, that the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high. Second, that the four-month reduction for the impacts of the disqualification order was insufficient. Third, that the end sentence was manifestly excessive. In short, Mr Morgan KC argued that Mr Koberstein should have been sentenced to home detention. The Crown oppose the appeal. Ms McConachy submitted that, in the circumstances, the end sentence (including the reductions made for Mr Koberstein’s disqualification order, the delay before trial and personal factors) was “extremely generous”.
The offending
[8]Mr Koberstein originally also sought to appeal against his conviction but this has since been abandoned.
Acting on a complaint, animal welfare inspectors from the MPI executed a search warrant on Mr Koberstein’s farm on 29 July 2019. They discovered animals in poor body condition and, accordingly, came back with veterinarians on 31 July 2019. The veterinarians scored the body condition of 1007 pregnant ewes on Mr Koberstein’s farm. They discovered 53 pregnant ewes with body condition scores (BCSs) of zero.[9] Over the following days, the MPI repeatedly requested that 33 of these ewes were to be euthanised immediately. Mr Koberstein refused, although two of the ewes were later euthanised on the farm. It was only on 6 August 2019 that the remaining ewes were transported to a meats processing plant for destruction.[10]
[9]The BCS is scored on a range from zero to five. It describes the condition of animals based on the amount of fat and/or muscle covering they have. A BCS of zero is described as being emaciated and on the point of death. Adult sheep should have a BCS between three and four at all times. See Ministry for Primary Industries Code of Welfare: Sheep and Beef Cattle (1 October 2018) at sch 2.
[10]Notably, they were about half the weight of the average mixed age ewe killed at the processing plant in 2019.
Of the remaining pregnant ewes, 410 were found to have a BCS of one, 404 had a BCS of two, and 140 had a BCS of three. Numerous individual animals were found to be experiencing particular distress or suffering, and these were represented in Mr Koberstein’s individual, rather than representative, charges. For instance, one ewe could not extend its leg due to an existing injury and therefore had to walk on its knuckle joint rather than its hoof, rendering it severely lame.[11] Another ewe suffered from torticollis of the neck, a probable birth defect that fixed the vertebrae of its neck into a tight backward C-shape.[12] Both ewes were later humanely destroyed.
[11]This ewe was the subject of a charge of wilful ill-treatment.
[12]This was the subject of the charge of keeping an animal alive that was suffering unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.
Four other ewes were discovered to be recumbent. One had a BCS of one and was suffering from severe bilateral pinkeye. Another had a BCS of one, albeit being on the border of a BCS of zero, and failed to respond to any treatment. One had a BCS of zero and had had its left eye pecked out by a hawk (being unable to move due to its emaciation). Another had a BCS of one and also had had its eye pecked out by a hawk — the attending veterinarians had recommended euthanasia, but Mr Koberstein refused to do so until a third veterinarian later made the same assessment. All four ewes were eventually destroyed. Two had been in areas that Mr Koberstein farmed daily and one was in the paddock immediately adjacent to his house. These four ewes were each the subjects of a charge of wilful ill-treatment.
In addition, one of the dead sheep discovered on the farm had lacked nutrition for an extended period of time and died of starvation according to a postmortem. This led to its own charge of reckless ill-treatment.
On 31 July 2019, a mob of 86 cattle had also been identified as being in less‑than-ideal condition. On 5 August, a further assessment was carried out. Of the 61 cows assessed, five had a BCS of one and a further 42 had a BCS of two. This meant that 77 per cent of the herd was in less-than-ideal condition. Likewise, 32 heifers were also assessed on 5 August 2019 — 30 of which had calves at foot. Those calves were 70–90 kilograms lighter than the expected weight of calves that age. Five of the heifers had BCSs of one and 25 of the heifers had BCSs of two. The only two heifers that had BCSs of three did not have calves at foot. Accordingly, all the heifers with calves at foot were below the recommended BCS of three.
Approach on appeal
An appeal against sentence proceeds as of right pursuant to s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. An appeal against sentence may be allowed only if this Court is satisfied that there has been an error in the sentence imposed and that a different sentence should be imposed.[13] Where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles, this Court will ordinarily not interfere.[14] An appellate court may only intervene and substitute its own views if the sentence under appeal is “manifestly excessive” or wrong in principle.[15]
Was the starting point too high?
[13]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2) and (3).
[14]Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].
[15]At [30]–[35], citing Te Aho v R [2013] NZCA 47 at [30].
After considering the authorities, the Judge concluded that the appropriate range for Mr Koberstein’s overall starting point would be between three years and two months’ imprisonment and three years and six months’ imprisonment.[16] He then adopted the lowest end of this range.[17]
Appellant’s submissions
[16]Judgment under appeal, above n 6, at [50] and [51], citing Wood v Ministry of Primary Industries [2019] NZHC 3486; and Ministry for Primary Industries v Wood [2022] NZDC 5089.
[17]Judgment under appeal, above n 6, at [51].
Mr Morgan submitted that a global starting point of three years’ imprisonment should have been adopted. He submitted the facts of this case were less serious than those in Wood v Ministry of Primary Industries.[18] There, the defendant pleaded guilty to seven charges of wilful ill-treatment, four charges of reckless ill-treatment, two further charges of ill-treatment of an animal and three charges of failing to comply with animal welfare obligations. These charges were in relation to cows and calves on the defendant’s farm, which he had been farming for some 40 years. He received a s 130 notice requiring him to euthanise ill or injured stock. He refused and instead continued to milk his cows twice a day. An inspection showed significant animal welfare issues with stock in an extremely poor condition needing to be euthanised immediately. The defendant was aware of his animals’ condition but did nothing to address their obvious suffering. A starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment was adopted, which had been adjusted down from four years’ imprisonment due to a mental health condition.
[18]Wood v Ministry of Primary Industries, above n 16.
Mr Morgan argued that the offending was much more serious in that case as the poor conditions of the animals had persisted for two years and the defendant explained that the ill-treatment was due to financial pressure to produce more milk, difficulties obtaining labour and bad weather — which suggested he adopted techniques amounting to ill-treatment to generate income.Counsel also contended that Wood v Ministry of Primary Industries is an outlier because the appeal was focused solely on the issue of home detention rather than the starting point. Further, counsel emphasised that the starting point in Wood was higher than the three years’ imprisonment upheld by Mallon J in Godsiff v R, in relation to the violent killing of 23 seals (including pups).[19]
[19]Godsiff v R HC Blenheim CRI-2011-406-18, 22 November 2011.
Mr Morgan also submitted that Mr Koberstein’s offending was significantly less serious than the offending in Ministry for Primary Industries v Erasmus, where a starting point of four years’ imprisonment had been adopted.[20]
[20]Ministry for Primary Industries v Erasmus [2013] NZHC 281.
In Erasmus, the offender had deliberately broken the tails of 115 cattle and hit them forcefully with a heavy steel bar whilst the cattle were confined in milking shed stalls.[21] Many of the animals suffered broken legs, swollen hocks and fractures. 27 cows had to be euthanised. The violence was motivated by anger. On appeal, the starting point was uplifted to four years’ imprisonment due to the number of animals harmed, the number of weeks over which the offending persisted and the degree of suffering caused.
[21]At [7].
The offending in Erasmus involved the deliberate infliction of pain and stress on individual animals for malicious purposes. In contrast, Mr Morgan argued that Mr Koberstein did not target individual animals, nor did he maliciously hurt and injure his animals. Rather, this was simply the case of a farmer who has wilfully or recklessly failed to act to prevent unnecessary suffering. Mr Morgan contended that the nature of the ill-treatment is important and distinguishes Mr Koberstein’s offending.
Mr Morgan then cited Erickson v Ministry for Primary Industries where the defendant was a slaughterman who processed bobby calves in a way that was deliberately cruel.[22] He was convicted on charges which related to 115 calves. The lead charges were two individual charges of wilful ill-treatment for repeatedly kicking one calf, and picking another up and slamming it onto the ground. He faced further charges regarding, among other things, swinging calves by their limbs onto concrete and hanging calves on hooks while still alive. A starting point of three years and three months’ imprisonment was adopted.[23]Mr Morgan argued that this offending is different from Mr Koberstein’s as the latter did not demonstrate any “positive intention for the animals to suffer” or any suggestion of sadism, malice or cruelty. Whilst Mr Koberstein’s offending involved a greater number of animals, the calves in Erickson were more vulnerable (being only a few days old) and concerned offending over a much shorter period of time — 95 calves over a two-day period.
[22]Erickson v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 271, [2017] NZAR 1015.
[23]At [64].
By comparison with the aggravating factors set out in Erickson, Mr Morgan said the present case does not involve extreme violence, nor was there pre-meditation, planning or malice.[24] At trial, an investigator gave evidence that MPI had no on-going issues with the farm and its stock as of 20 August 2019. This was not a case where the offender failed to take meaningful steps at the time or did nothing to improve the condition of the animals over a long period. As to mitigation, Mr Morgan argued that the drought conditions at the time were a mitigating feature. Counsel submitted that destocking or other mitigating steps raised by the Crown is made in hindsight. He underscored that the Court in Erickson acknowledged the importance of realism in sentencing for animal welfare offending.[25]
Respondent’s submissions
[24]At [53].
[25]At [34].
Ms McConachy argued that, for the starting point, a range of between three years and two months and three and a half years’ imprisonment was plainly available. The Judge adopted a starting point at the bottom of that range, which counsel submitted was generous in the circumstances. In this context, Ms McConachy contended that adjusting the starting point by two months as sought by Mr Morgan would be unjustified on the facts and would also amount to “tinkering”.
In addition, counsel contended that Mr Koberstein was making commercial rather than welfare decisions, and that this was the primary cause of the welfare issues on the farm. He did not take adequate steps to remedy those issues because doing so would have been costly. Ms McConachy pointed to Mr Koberstein’s statement that destocking was difficult because of transport problems. Nonetheless, Mr Koberstein accepted he could have ordered a truck but would have had to pay for a full truck load. So, he chose to “bide [his] time to be able to get rid of them”. Similarly, counsel argued that Mr Koberstein could have purchased additional supplementary feed but did not because of cost.
Ms McConachy submitted that the drought conditions were not a mitigating feature of the offending because Mr Koberstein gave evidence that he was aware of “a strong possibility of a very dry summer or a very dry period” from as early as July 2018. Yet he did not take adequate steps to ensure his stock did not suffer pain or distress. Counsel contended that his awareness of impending drought conditions placed a greater obligation on Mr Koberstein to take adequate steps to properly care for his stock, including destocking or supplying supplementary food. Counsel referred to the Judge’s finding that the drought conditions were not a mitigating feature.[26]
[26]Judgment under appeal, above n 6, at [39].
Ms McConachy also cited Ministry for Primary Industries v Wood (a different case from the one discussed at [11] and [12] above), in which the defendant faced five representative charges.[27] The first was a representative charge of wilfully ill-treating 12 cattle by failing to provide them with sufficient food and water resulting in their death. The second was a representative charge of wilfully ill-treating 29 cattle by failing to provide sufficient food such that they needed to be euthanised. He faced a further charge of recklessly ill-treating 15 cattle by failing to provide them with sufficient food such that they died of starvation. Finally, he faced two charges that he failed to meet the needs of 127 cattle and approximately 600 sheep.
[27]Ministry for Primary Industries v Wood, above n 16.
The defendant had been farming the property for approximately 17 years. Following a report of concern, MPI attended the farm and discovered significant welfare issues, principally a lack of feed and an uncontrolled parasite issue.[28] They found 28 dead cattle on the farm and a further 29 had to be euthanised by attending veterinarians. The defendant admitted he knew the animals had likely died due to weather and starvation. Many of the animals had become recumbent and died slowly and painfully over several days. Pasture levels were well below that considered suitable to meet the needs of cattle on the farm; 50 per cent of the cattle had BCSs of less than one. The defendant had taken no remedial steps to improve their condition. Some 600 of the sheep were malnourished. The defendant was, nonetheless, highly cooperative with the MPI investigation.
[28]At [6].
Judge Krebs held that, given the number of stock involved and the degree of suffering caused, a starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment was justified.[29] This was reduced by six months to reflect the defendant’s mental health issues, giving a final starting point of three years’ imprisonment. Ms McConachy contended that there were important similarities with Mr Koberstein’s offending. Both involved the wilful ill-treatment of a large number of animals caused by chronic underfeeding and overstocking. Both involved additional charges relating to the poor condition of hundreds of farm animals. The starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment was considered justified in relation to the defendant (before his mental health issues were considered). Counsel argued that a similar starting point was justified in relation to Mr Koberstein.
Discussion
[29]At [43].
Mr Morgan does not raise any particular aggravating factors that were incorrectly taken account of, although he does argue that the drought should have been a mitigating factor. His argument appears to be that the Judge’s overall weighting of the various factors was wrong. We disagree. The global starting point adopted by the Judge was one that was available to him. He considered the relevant authorities and made a careful assessment of their application to the present case, taking account of the appropriate considerations as they applied to Mr Koberstein’s offending. We can detect no error in his approach.
In addition, while we acknowledge counsel’s submissions that premeditation, planning or overt malice were absent, in contrast with Erickson, Mr Koberstein’s conduct was not an isolated incident. There had been numerous requests from the MPI for immediate action across several years arising from their concerns over animal mistreatment. Mr Koberstein’s refusal to heed their advice — leaving stock effectively untreated when MPI had urged him to euthanising them — was doubtlessly concerning for the Judge when assessing an appropriate sentence. In any event, we are also inclined to the view that a reduction of the starting point by two months would be tinkering.
This ground of appeal must fail.
Was the four-month reduction for disqualification order impacts insufficient?
Appellant’s submissions
Mr Morgan submitted that a greater reduction should have been given for the disqualification order imposed by the Judge, which meant the end of Mr Koberstein’s career as a farmer. Counsel contended that it has resulted in the loss of his life’s work and so a discount of four months for this was wholly inadequate. Mr Morgan also argued that the disqualification order itself meets many of the relevant purposes and principles in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. In particular, counsel submitted that s 8(h) of the Sentencing Act applies.[30] There were also practical and financial implications for Mr Koberstein and his family, including tax, insurance and borrowing obligations. Mr Morgan contended that a one-third deduction from the starting point would have been warranted to account for the disqualification order.[31]
Respondent’s submissions
[30]Section 8(h) provides that, in sentencing an offender, a court “must take into account any particular circumstances of the offender that mean that a sentence or other means of dealing with the offender that would otherwise be appropriate would, in the particular instance, be disproportionately severe”.
[31]No objection was taken by the Crown to the admission on appeal of three affidavits sworn by Mr Koberstein, his wife and accountant addressing these matters and we have taken them into account in the analysis that follows.
Ms McConachy contended that the four-month reduction provided was generous and well within the appropriate range. Counsel submitted that the sentencing purposes of denunciation and deterrence would not be upheld if the discount exceeded four months.[32] Ms McConachy noted that, at sentencing, counsel agreed that a reduction of three months was appropriate. Yet, the Judge provided an even greater reduction. While it is accepted that Mr Koberstein will be precluded from owning farm animals (and will therefore be unable to continue farming), Ms McConachy argued this is the natural result of his offending and is consistent with the intended purpose of s 169 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
Discussion
[32]Sentencing Act, s 7 (1)(e) and (f).
We agree with Ms McConachy that the prohibition from owning or exercising control over farm animals is the natural and appropriate result of Mr Koberstein’s offending. While some reduction from the starting point is justified, the principles and purposes of denunciation and deterrence would not be sufficiently satisfied by a discount of one-third. The Judge already provided a larger reduction than was sought by defence counsel at sentencing. There is no evidence to suggest he erred by not providing an even greater one.
Further, the practical, financial and tax implications suffered by Mr Koberstein also follow from his offending. It is inherent in the nature of any such order that it would conclude the recipient’s farming career and likely result in the sale of their stock. We have also been referred to authorities in which similar or no reductions were made for disqualification orders.[33] For these reasons, we conclude the four-month reduction was available to the Judge.
[33]See Ministry for Primary Industries v Wood, above n 16; and Erasmus, above n 20.
This ground of appeal fails.
Was the end sentence manifestly excessive?
The Judge subtracted four months, in recognition of the disqualification order, from the original starting point of three years and two months’ imprisonment to reach an adjusted starting point of two years and 10 months’ imprisonment.[34] He reduced this by 17 per cent to recognise Mr Koberstein’s age, prior good character and the delay before trial.[35] This resulted in a final sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment. The Judge also rejected the Crown’s submission that his other convictions and MPI’s prior involvement should be reflected in a three-month uplift.[36] He accepted that while the prior offending occurred in 2018, Mr Koberstein was not convicted of it until 2021, which was after the present offending.
Appellant’s submissions
[34]Judgment under appeal, above n 6, at [60].
[35]At [67]–[68].
[36]At [61].
Mr Morgan submitted that a sentence of imprisonment was manifestly excessive. When accounting for the combination of Mr Koberstein’s age, the nature of the offending and the effects of the indefinite disqualification order, counsel submits that the appropriate sentence is home detention. Counsel contended that Mr Koberstein has lived a largely pro-social life and made substantial contributions towards his family and the community. In this regard, Mr Morgan referred to statements from Mr Koberstein’s children, sister, long-standing livestock agent and a local beekeeper, all of whom spoke highly of Mr Koberstein and outlined what a terrible fall from grace this has been for him. Counsel argued that this fall from grace is punishment in of itself.
In addition, he emphasised that Mr Koberstein has continued to farm and maintain his good character after the 2019 offending through to trial. As noted above, there were no on-going concerns following their 20 August 2019 visit. Mr Morgan submitted that the Judge was correct not to impose an uplift against Mr Koberstein for his previous convictions or involvement with MPI. He contended that Mr Koberstein had farmed the relevant land for decades and, while he had received educational material and alerts from MPI, was not convicted of any offence until 23 June 2021 for offending occurring in February 2018.[37] As the current offending occurred in 2019, counsel contended it is not aggravated by those convictions.
Respondent’s submissions
[37]See Ministry for Primary Industries v Koberstein, above n 1; and Koberstein v R [2024] NZHC 316, above n 1.
Ms McConachy emphasised that the focus must be on whether the end sentence was manifestly excessive. In light of the “extremely generous” reductions and other sentencing decisions made by the Judge, counsel submitted that the end sentence cannot be seen as manifestly excessive. Instead, Ms McConachy contended that it was generous for the Judge not to impose any uplift for Mr Koberstein’s extensive history of MPI involvement on the farm,[38] and his three prior animal welfare convictions.[39] Ms McConachy argued that an uplift of three to six months would have been easily justifiable.
[38]On 3 October 2000, MPI wrote to Mr Koberstein informing him about numerous animals found in light condition and reminded him of his legal obligations. On 22 October 2013, MPI wrote advising that a number of lambs were in poor condition, and several dead sheep were visible on the property. Mr Koberstein was again reminded of his obligations and provided with appropriate strategies for successful drought management. On 23 March 2016, MPI wrote to Mr Koberstein confirming that, across three inspections of his farm in June–August 2015, in-lamb ewes were found restricted to paddocks with very low feed levels. Sheep were also in poor condition. Inspectors had found a total of 90 dead sheep and 50 other sheep were found to be weak and thin. Several animals were recumbent or disorientated. Six sheep were euthanised by inspectors because they had a BCS of 1 and no remedial action had been taken to improve their condition. It was also clear that a number of additional dead sheep had been removed from the paddocks to a pit at the rear of the property. The March 2016 letter served a s 130 notice which required Mr Koberstein to engage a farm consultant to assess his operations. Mr Koberstein did obtain this report but he dismissed its findings, calling the report writer an “idiot”, and he refused to provide MPI with the report. That report had strongly warned Mr Koberstein of the “poor matching of feed supply and demand”. On 20 April 2016, MPI wrote to Mr Koberstein confirming that numerous sheep were affected by flystrike, dead sheep were observed that had been affected by flystrike, and four lambs that were in very poor condition required treatment or euthanasia.
[39]The charges were charge of reckless ill-treatment of eight sheep, with the result that all died from significant flystrike; a charge of failing to ensure that the physical, health and behavioural needs of animals were met, by failing to prevent and treat flystrike in a flock of 100 sheep; and a charge of failing to treat 100 sheep appropriately, when it was required to alleviate unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the animals as a result of flystrike.
Counsel submitted that, despite extensive MPI involvement over a lengthy period, Mr Koberstein committed serious animal welfare offending on two separate occasions — the flystrike offending in 2018 and the current offending in 2019. Counsel contended that an uplift was justified and that this is a relevant factor when considering whether the end sentence was excessive. Ms McConachy submitted that given the low starting point, generous reductions and lack of uplifts, the end sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or outside the available range.
Discussion
We agree with Ms McConachy that the overall approach to sentencing was generous and the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. An uplift for the previous involvement of MPI and Mr Koberstein’s previous convictions could easily have been warranted. Mr Koberstein’s conduct did, on more than one occasion, cause the extended and acute suffering of many animals, leading to their death. Parliament has provided for terms of imprisonment for this offending in the Animal Welfare Act and has encouraged courts to treat such offending as criminal.[40]
Result
[40]See Erickson, above n 20, at [35].
The appeal is dismissed.
Mr Koberstein must surrender himself to the Prison Director at Tongariro Prison (or such other location as may be directed by Corrections in writing) by 10 am within two days from the release of this judgment to complete the sentence of imprisonment imposed by Judge Snell.
Solicitors:
Clancy Fisher Oxner & Bryant, Tokoroa for Appellant
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua for Respondent
0
2
0