R v Iripa HC Whangarei CRI 2009-027-2585

[2010] NZHC 483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2009-027-2585

THE QUEEN

v

HAMILTON IRIPA

Hearing:         15 April 2010

Counsel:         M B Smith for Crown

S Nicholson for Mr Iripa

Sentence imposed:     Cultivating cannabis (x1) Possession of cannabis (x1) Selling cannabis (x1)

2 years 5 months imprisonment

Destruction order made of all exhibits seized

Sentence:       15 April 2010

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHITE J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, PO Box 146, Whangarei
Counsel:

S Nicholson, PO Box 147, Kaikohe

R V IRIPA HC WHA CRI 2009-027-2585  15 April 2010

Offences

[1]      Mr Iripa, you pleaded guilty in the Kaikohe District Court on 24 September

2009, to three offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.   Your case has been transferred  to  the  High  Court  for  convictions  to  be  entered  and  for  this  Court  to sentence you.  The convictions were entered formally this morning.

[2]      The three offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 are:

a)        Cultivating cannabis in breach of s 9(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act

1975, which has a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment;

b)        Possession of cannabis for supply in breach of s 6(1)(f) of the Misuse

of  Drugs  Act  1975,  which  has  a  maximum  penalty  of  8  years imprisonment; and

c)        Selling cannabis in breach of s  6(1)(e)  of  the  Misuse  of  Drugs  Act

1975, which has a maximum penalty of 8 years imprisonment.

Factual background

[3]      At   the   commencement   of   the   hearing   this   morning   it   was   originally anticipated that there might need to be a disputed facts hearing under s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002 for the purpose of resolving issues between the Police and you as to the number, quality, likely yield and value of the cannabis plants found on your property  and  the  commercial  nature,  if  any,  of  your  cultivation  operation  for  the purpose  of  applying  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  in  R  v  Terewi[1]  and determining the applicable category of offending.  After hearing from Crown counsel and  your  counsel,  however,  the  position  was  reached  that  a  disputed  facts  hearing was  not  required  on  the  basis  that  the  expert  evidence  from  Detective  Sergeant Miller was not disputed and your affidavit was received by the Court.   At the same

time Crown counsel accepted that an allowance should be made for the fact that the cultivation involved a large number of seedling sized plants and while the crop had potential  to  become  a  large-scale  commercial  growing  operation  some  allowance should be made for potentiality rather than actuality.

[1] [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA).

[4]      By  way  of  factual  background  I  note  that  the  Police  summary  of  facts recorded that as a result of a search of your property the Police discovered within the dwelling on  the  property a  small  room  secured  by locks  that  upon  inspection  was found to contain a tray of 127 small cannabis seedlings growing under two artificial light  sources  that  were  operating  at  the  time. The  small  room  was  fitted  with  a filtered  air  extraction  system  operating  in  conjunction  with  an  oscillating  pedestal fan.

[5]      Police then located in excess of 3000 cannabis seeds on a shelf in a garage attached to the dwelling.  The garage also contained two cardboard boxes containing

a total of 700 grams of dry cannabis leaf material.  Located on a shelf in the garage was a used kitchen pot containing an amount of cannabis oil.

[6]      During  an  extensive  search  of  the  surrounding  section,  Police  located  a number of separate cannabis plots, including 549 cannabis seedlings and 93 cannabis plants.  Within the 93 plants was the main plot of 42 cannabis plants ranging from 2 to 2.6 metres in height.

[7]      When  spoken  to  by  the  Police  you  admitted  rendering  cannabis  oil  from cannabis plant material with the use of double boiling pots, muslin and lighter fluid. With  regard  to  the  cannabis  plants  and  dry  leaf  material,  you  admitted  supplying persons unknown with ounces of cannabis for $200 an ounce.  You further admitted cultivating and tending the entire crop of cannabis located at your address, utilising the growing equipment you purchased for that purpose.

[8]      Detective Sergeant Miller who, after giving evidence as to his expertise and experience, said in his statement that he had  been shown  photographs  and  video footage taken at the time of the search of your property located at 273 State Highway

12, Omapere on 31 January 2009.   Detective Sergeant Miller said that he had also discussed some details of the case with the officer in charge and reviewed the file.

[9]      Detective Sergeant Miller’s evidence was that there were 658 cannabis plants growing on the premises.  42 of these plants were large, semi mature plants growing

in  the  swimming  pool  area.   The  rest  of  the  plants  located  ranged  from  seedlings through  to  juvenile  plants  about  1  metre  in  height.   All  of  the  plants  found  were extremely healthy plants growing in good conditions with the use of potting mix and fertilizers.  You were growing your cannabis plants from seeds.  By growing them in this way, Detective Sergeant Miller estimated that half of the plants would have been male  plants  which  would  be  worth  very  little  and  would  be  removed  from  the ground.  You had demonstrated this by removing 17 large male cannabis plants from the swimming pool area which were located in your shed.

[10]     Close inspection of the plants in the swimming pool area showed that there were  a  further  three  plants  that  were  males  that  had  not  been  removed. Of  the remaining 39 large female plants left in the swimming pool area, Detective Sergeant Miller  expected  a  yield  of  between  8  to  12  ounces  of  cannabis  head  material  per plant.  The  remaining  616  plants  would  not  grow  to  the  same  height  as  the swimming pool plants as they were planted out later in the season.   Approximately half of these plants would be removed as male plants once the sex of the plants had been  established. That  left  308  female  plants  that  Detective  Sergeant  Miller expected to yield between 4 to 6 ounces of cannabis head material per plant.   This equated  to  the  total  crop  yielding  between,  at  the  very  minimum,  1544  to  2116 ounces of seedless cannabis head material.

[11]     On the basis of your admission that you sold the cannabis by the ounce for

$200 per ounce, the crop was  worth  at  the  very  minimum  between  $308,800  to

$369,600.

[12]     In your affidavit you said that you commenced growing the cannabis in August/September 2008. You used seeds which you had collected from tinnies you had bought and seeds given to you by cannabis smoking family and whanau.  The

first main plot you put down was in the backyard where a Para type swimming pool had been located.

[13]     You said that you sowed hands full of seeds in this spot just in the same way

as  grass  seed  is  sown.     You  fully  expected  that  a  large  proportion  would  not germinate and that many of the plants which did germinate would be destroyed by snails, other pests, or would otherwise fail.  You said that it surprised you when the plants in that location grew to such a height.   While you were watering the plants you would pull out the plants which had seed pods on them.  In a technical way you did  not  know  how  to  distinguish  between  female  plants  and  male  plants,  but  you knew just from common knowledge, that male plants with seeds on them would lead to lower quality head.

[14]     You said that you were worried when the plants in the pool area grew to such

a  height  because  they  were  too  visible  and  you  did  not  want  to  get  caught.   That would have messed up your whole plan to ensure that you had an ongoing, no-cost supply of cannabis for your personal use and cannabis smoking family purposes.

[15]     You decided to grow some plants indoors to speed up the process and to get supplies  organised  more  quickly  than  with  the  outdoor  growing. You  were  also aware that cannabis plants growing outdoors get “ripped off”.  You wanted to get it all over and done with as quickly as possible.

[16]     Your  recollection  was  that  most  of  the  indoor  plants  were  quite  pale  and sickly  looking.   Many  of  the  plants  described  by  the  Police  as  juveniles  were  no more than 10 or 15 centimetres in height.   You did not know whether all of them would  have  lasted  into  maturity.   You  did  not  expect  them  to.   The  plants  which were  spotted  around  in  the  trees  were  the  plants  you  removed  from  the  main  plot because they looked like they were losing the battle against the taller plants in the plot.

[17]     You could not say much about the Police evidence about the number of plants because  apart from the main outdoor plot  you never  counted them. At one point you counted 35 plants in the main plot. In your mind it was the main plot and

a few plants you had transplanted from there which would provide enough cannabis

to ensure no worries about availability or where the money to pay for cannabis, if you had to buy it, would come from.

[18]     As the plants grew you were nibbling away at them, smoking tips and small, not yet mature buds.  In early December 2008, you cut the buds off five plants.  You knew  that  your  former  partner’s  family were  coming up  to  Omapere  at  Christmas and this would be a time when they would need cannabis for the sessions you knew you would have together.   That was why you stripped those five plants.   The yield was about five ounces.   You did not have any scales and did not weigh them, but when  the  cannabis  was  dried  it  had  the  look  of  around  five  times  the  bulk  of  an ounce.

[19]     About  a  week  before  Christmas,  two  different  locals  came  around  to  your place about a day apart each of them.   As was common with users, the question of availability came up.  You were sitting in the orchard in front of your place having a smoke.  You were asked if you knew where there was any cannabis and you said you would make inquiries.  As it was Christmas with all sorts of extra costs to be met and you were broke as usual, you decided to sell them some of the cannabis from the five plants  you  had stripped.   When they came  back  to see  what  you  had been able  to organise you did not let on that the cannabis you sold was yours.  You let them think that you had got it from someone else.  These people were not what you would call close  whanau,  they  were  just  locals  whom  you  knew  as  cannabis  smokers  just  as they  knew  you. You  gave  them  the  cannabis  in  plastic  bread  bags  for  $200  an “ounce” which you judged by look alone.  One of them took one ounce and the other took  two  ounces.  They  were  the  only  sales  which  you  made. You  were  happy because you had plenty of cannabis and your immediate Christmas money problems were solved.

[20]     You strongly disputed the Police suggestion that you intended to and would have taken steps to get a return from your cannabis cultivation of between $308,800

to $369,600 as suggested by the Police.   It never entered your head to get into the cannabis trade as a grower/dealer with a plan to make it your business, let alone a

business with that sort of income.  Apart from the $600 from selling the three ounces

a week before Christmas in 2008, you had not profited from the cultivation at all.

Personal circumstances

[21]     The pre-sentence report discloses that you are 41 years old.   You were born

in the Cook Islands, and came to New Zealand when you were three years old.  Your parents have died, but you maintain a good relationship with your siblings.  You left school at the age of 15 with no formal qualifications.   Before moving to Northland eight  years  ago  you  worked  in  a  variety of  jobs,  including  at  a  bakery.   You  also completed  a  course  in  Maori  and  at  Youthline,  and  volunteered  at  the  Red  Cross. Since moving to Northland, you have not had regular employment.   For 15 months you did work with your former partner in a café business you ran.  You are actively involved in your community, helping out with your children’s sports teams and you are a volunteer fire fighter.

[22]     Your former partner is presently working in the Auckland area.   As a result, you are the sole caregiver of  your three children and nephew.   You also have two children from a previous relationship who reside in Auckland.

[23]     You  have  outstanding  fines  of  $4,670.00.   You  said  that  you  had  no  gang connections.

[24]     Regarding your offending, you said you did not dispute the summary of facts, and  you  accepted  full  responsibility  for  what  you  did. Your  offending  was  pre- planned.   The  report  writer  states  that  you  show  little  insight  into  your  offending. You never fully considered the legal consequences of what you were doing, and said that you just wanted “some more smoke”.   But you said you were given a wake up call  following  the  Police  search,  and  you  have  not  consumed  cannabis  since February 2009.

[25]     This  is  your  first  offence  of  this  nature,  but  you  have  previously  appeared before  the  Court  on  a  number  of  earlier  occasions  on  dishonesty,  driving  and compliance related charges.

[26]     You  are  assessed  at  a  low  risk  of  re-offending,  but  you  have  identified  as having a harmful pattern of drug use.   If your drug use is not addressed, then your risk of re-offending is likely to increase.

[27]     The pre-sentence report recommended that you attend a suitable alcohol and drug treatment programme, either in the community or in prison.

[28]     Your proposed home detention address was found to be unsuitable as it is 54 kilometres  away  from  the  CPPS  office,  which  is  where  your  sentence  would  be monitored from.   However, due to the seriousness of your offending a sentence of imprisonment was recommended.

Crown submissions

[29]     The Crown originally submitted, on the basis of Detective Sergeant Miller’s evidence,  that  the  offending  fell  within  category  3  of  Terewi  and  that  the  starting point should be 5 years imprisonment but this recommendation was altered today to 4 years imprisonment to allow for the number of immature seedlings or plants found and  also  to  recognise,  in  accordance  with  Terewi,  that  there  should  be  a  lower starting point to reflect the low level of actual sales.

[30]     The Crown submitted that the aggravating features of the offending were the fact that cannabis offending is endemic in Northland and your large-scale operation not only involved harm to you but also contributed to the harm from the use of drugs

in the Northland region.  The Crown also submitted that a further aggravating factor was premeditation apparent from the sourcing, planting and ongoing care of such a large number of plants.

[31]     The Crown accepted that there were no aggravating features relating to you personally  and  that  your  guilty  plea  was  a  mitigating  factor  which  taking  into account pre-Hessell[2]  discounts and the historic approach to such pleas in Northland meant that a discount of up to 33% was appropriate.

[2] [2009] NZCA 450.

[32]     On the question of the relevance of your personal and family circumstances, Crown  counsel  reminded  me that  in terms  of  Terewi  such  factors  should  be  given little, if any, weight.

Defence submissions

[33]     Your  counsel  in  carefully  prepared  written  and  oral  submissions  has  asked the Court to take into account the following matters when sentencing you for these serious offences:

a)        Your  primary  purpose  in  cultivating  the  cannabis  was  to  meet  the addictions of yourself and your former partner.

b)Your  secondary purpose  was  to  oblige  those  in  your  close  cannabis using circle with nil cost cannabis.

c)        In  terms  of  Terewi,  the  starting  point  should  be  mid  category  2, namely 3 years imprisonment.

d)The  manner  of  cultivation  was  rudimentary  and  while  successful beyond  your  expectations,  did  not  show  a  commercial  intent  as  the usual indicia of commerciality were missing.

e)        An allowance should be made for the number of seedlings rather than mature plants.

f)        A further allowance should be made for the fact that there were few actual  sales  and  applying  Terewi,  at  least  by  analogy,  that  would support a reduction in starting point from 4 down to 3 years.

g)        You co-operated fully with the Police on apprehension.

h)The  yield  estimated  by  Detective  Sergeant  Miller  of  over  $300,000 was  unlikely  to  be  achieved:  cf  R  v  Young[3] at [3]. Your counsel calculated that 39 mature female plants might have produced around $60,000 to $90,000.

[3] HC WHG CRI 2008-029-000555 4 February 2009.

i)The decision in R v Bhana[4], was also a useful precedent for a more sophisticated  cultivation  operation  than  the  one  here  and  a  starting point of 3 years 3 months had been adopted.

[4] HC WHG 2008-027-3050 22 July 2009.

j)Reliance was  also placed  on  R v Ngatai  and   Murray[5],   where notwithstanding the commerciality of the cannabis   cultivation involved, sentences of home detention were imposed.

[5] HC HAM CRI 2009-063-288 22 September 2009.

k)The aggravating factors of harm to the community and premeditation were already recognised in the proposed 3 year starting point.

l)         The guilty pleas should attract a discount of 33%.

m)Character references supported your public service to the community generally and the Omapere Volunteer Fire Brigade in particular.

n)Your attempt at rehabilitation should be taken into account. You were now endeavouring to the break the drug cycle and were going through “cold  turkey”. There have been  no  breaches  of  your  bail. Your counsel also pointed out that you appear to be able to turn corners, not having committed any serious offences for the last 20 years.

o)The impact on your children of your offending and any imprisonment should be taken into account especially the impact on your 14 year old son who is a promising rugby player and who  has  attained  an inaugural scholarship to a private school. There is a reference from

Mr Nock explaining that your son’s success is due in no small part to

your assistance.   You also have two young daughters aged 11 and 4. Your counsel, however, quite properly accepted that everything would not be destroyed if  you  were  separated  from  your family by a short term of imprisonment because, fortunately for you, there is significant support from your wider family, particularly from one of your sisters.

[34]     While your counsel accepted that in Terewi and subsequent cases the Courts had made it clear that personal circumstances are to be given little weight in drug cases,  the  provisions  of  s 8(i)  of  the  Sentencing  Act  2002  and  decisions  such  as Bhana  and  Ngatai  and  Murray  do  show  that  personal  circumstances  may  still  be taken into account.

[35]     Your  counsel  also  raised  the  question  of  home  detention  seeking  either  a remand of one month to six weeks for the necessary arrangements to be made or that leave be reserved to enable you to apply for a substituted sentence.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[36]     The purposes are set out in s 7:

·    To hold the offender accountable for harm done by the offending (s

7(1)(a));

·To  promote  a  sense  of  responsibility  and  acknowledgement  of harm (s 7(1)(b));

·    To  denounce  the  conduct  in  which  the  offender  was  involved  (s

7(1)(e));

·To deter the offender and other persons from committing a similar offence (s 7(1)(f));

·    To protect the community from the offender (s 7(1)(g)); and

·    To  assist  in  the  offender’s  rehabilitation  and  reintegration  (s

7(1)(h)).

[37]     The principles under s 8 include:

·    The gravity of the offending, including the degree of culpability (s

8(a));

·The  seriousness  of  the  type  of  offence  in  comparison  with  other offences (s 8(b));

·    The general desirability of consistency (s 8(e));

·    The need to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate

in the circumstances (s 8(g)).

·The  need  to  take  into  account  the  offender’s  personal,  family, whanau, community and cultural background (s 8(i)).

Aggravating and mitigating factors

Features of the offending

Aggravating factors

[38]     The extent of any loss, damage or harm resulting from the offence (s 9(1)(d)). The harmful effects of drug offending are well known.   By cultivating and selling cannabis you were making the drug available to those in your community.

[39]     Premeditation  (s  9(1)(i)).  You  were  growing  a  large  amount  of  cannabis. This  required  significant  planning to  source  seeds  and  growing equipment.   There was also extensive pre-planning required to get the cannabis into a form in which it could be sold.  It also needed to be harvested, packaged and buyers found.

Mitigating factors

[40]     While you claim an absence of a commercial intent, the fact of sales, albeit minor, and the potential for further income mean that this is not a mitigating factor in your case.

Features of the offender

Aggravating factors

[41]     Previous convictions (s 9(1)(j)).   You have seven previous convictions (nine

if your two convictions from the Youth Court are included).  The most recent was in

2001 when you failed to comply with a prohibition order by an enforcement officer. No sentence is recorded  for this charge.   Prior to this,  your last conviction was in

1991 when you were convicted of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and receiving stolen property.  Your convictions are, therefore, not drug related, and you have had

no  serious  convictions  since  1991.         They  should  not  be  taken  into  account  at sentencing for these offences.

Mitigating Factors

[42]     Guilty plea  (s  9(2)(b)).   You  pleaded  guilty to  these  offences  and  that  is  a mitigating factor here.

[43]     Your community work.  You are a volunteer fire fighter and have previously volunteered for the Red Cross and completed a Youth Line course.  Those are factors

to your credit.

Tariff case

[44]     R v Terewi created sentencing guidelines for the cultivation of cannabis, but has  subsequently  been  extended  to  apply  to  possession  for  supply  and  sale  of cannabis cases (R v Keefe[6]).

[6] CA 275/02 28 November 2002.

[45]     Terewi  sets  out  three  broad  categories  of  cannabis  offending  at  [4].     In summary:

(1)Category 1: involves growing a small number of cannabis plants for personal use without any actual or intended sale to another party.  It

is generally appropriate to impose a fine or non-custodial sentence. The offender may be subject to periodic detention or a short prison

term  where  there  has  been  supply  to  others  on  a  non-commercial basis.

(2)      Category 2: involves small-scale cultivation of cannabis plants for a commercial  purpose,  that  is,  for  profit.               Starting  point  of  2  to  4 years’  imprisonment  is  generally  appropriate,  but  a  lower  starting point may be taken if sales are infrequent and of a limited extent.

(3)      Category   3:   the   most   serious   offending   involving   large-scale commercial   growing   “usually   with   a   considerable   degree   of sophistication and organisation”.  The starting point for this category

is to be 4 years or more.

Comparable cases

I have considered a number of comparable cases including those cited by your counsel and also Crown.  They include R v Wilson,[7]  R  v  Wharehinga,[8]   R  v  Young,[9]

[7] CA273/04, 13 December 2004. 

[8] CA438/02, 30 May 2003

[9] HC Whangarei, CRI 2008-029-000555, 4 February 2009.

R v Cross,[10]  R v Fox,[11]  R v Griffin,[12]  R v Syme,[13]  R v Silson[14]  and Police v Lund.[15]

[10] HC Hamilton CRI 2005-079-000705, 6 October 2005

[11] HC Gisborne CRI 2005-065-000117, 13 December 2005

[12] HC Dunedin CRI 2006-012-1210, 25 July 2006.

[13] HC Hamilton CRI 2005-068-637, 31 May 2006

[14] CA172/01, 30 August 2001.

[15] HC Palmerston North, CRI 2008-054-1619, 19 September 2008.

[46]     I am prepared to accept that  you initially intended to cultivate cannabis for the use of yourself, your former partner and your fellow cannabis smokers and that you  started  out  in  a  fairly rudimentary fashion.   At  the  same  time,  however,  your cultivation proved successful as can be seen from the number and quality of plants which you grew.  The fact that you did make some initial sales also indicates that if you  had  not  been  apprehended  you  were  likely  to  have  continued  with  your operation on a commercial basis.  Perhaps fortunately for you, the Police discovered your plants before this could occur.

[47]     I also accept that it is difficult to estimate the value of the cannabis crop when there was only one or two small actual sales and potentiality is uncertain.   It was,

therefore, appropriate for Crown counsel to accept that the starting point should be at the  lower  end  of  category  3  or  the  upper  end  of  category 2  in  Terewi  because  so many of the plants were seedlings.

[48]     I consider  that  your  offending does  not  meet  the  description  of  category 3, but  rather  fits  the  description  of  category  2,  at  the  upper  end.          I  therefore  fix  a starting point of 3 years 9 months imprisonment.

[49]     I also agree with Crown counsel that it is necessary to take into account the elements of harm to the community in Northland and the premeditation which was clearly involved in your enterprise.  This means that with a starting point of 3 years 9 months, there needs to be an adjustment upwards to reflect those aggravating factors and your other cannabis offending which takes the sentence to 4 years.

[50]     Turning then to the mitigating factors, it is clear that there should be a 33% deduction  for  your  guilty pleas.   I am  also  prepared  to  take  into  account  your  co- operation with the Police as a mitigating factor.

[51]     The difficult issue in this case is  the  extent  to  which  I  should  take  into account your personal circumstances and the impact of the sentence on your family.

I am  prepared  to  accept  that  rehabilitation  is  possible  and  that  the  impact  on  your three children might be serious.   At the same time, however, I am bound to follow the approach of the Courts in cases such as Terewi which make it clear that in drug cases, personal factors are to be given little, if any, weight.   In Terewi, the Court of Appeal said at [13]:

As with any drug offending for the purpose of profit making, the personal circumstances of the offender whose activities fall within categories 2 and 3 are usually not to be given much significance in the sentencing process. The fundamental  requirement  is  that  the  sentence  imposed  should  act  as  a deterrent to other persons minded to engage in similar activity.

[52]     I am also reassured by the advice from  your counsel that a prison sentence involving  the  separation  of  you  from  your  family  will  not  destroy  your  family because of the support which they will receive from your wider family, particularly your sister.

[53]     I  am  prepared,  however,  to  make  a  further  deduction  of  three  months  for these  other  mitigating  factors.   This  means  that  with  a  starting  point  of  3  years  9 months,  adjusted  upwards  to  4  years  to  reflect  the  aggravating  factors,  a  33% deduction for your guilty pleas (which brings the sentence back to 2 years 8 months) and   a   further   3   month   deduction   for   co-operation   and   personal   and   family circumstances bringing the final sentence to 2 years 5 months.

[54]         I do not overlook your counsel’s submissions regarding home detention, but the sentence which I am about to impose precludes consideration of that sentence.  I also note that the pre-sentence report records that your current address would not be suitable  for  a  sentence  of  home  detention  and  that  no  satisfactory steps  have  been taken by you to obtain a suitable alternative address.

Sentencing

Please  stand  Mr  Iripa. Mr  Iripa  on  the  charge  of  cultivating  cannabis  you  are sentenced  to  2  years  5  months  imprisonment.   On  the  other  two  charges  you  are sentenced to 1 years imprisonment on each of them.  These three sentences are to be served concurrently with each other.

[55]     There  will  be  an  order  for  the  growing  materials  seized  as  exhibits  to  be forfeited and destroyed.

[56]     You may stand down.

D J White J