Response to Consultation CP(R)19/08, n 58 above, para 28. It is fair to say that the use of the reasonable man/person as the benchmark against which the defendant's reaction should be compared probably caused much confusion and misunderstanding. Edwards, Loss of Self-Control: When His Anger is Worth More than Her Fear, in Alan Reed and Michael Bohlander (eds. In a recent article: Finbarr McAuley claimed that provocation This chapter reviews some of the key elements and concerns about the old common law before turning to explore its statutory replacement. But whether the new law will be noticeably different in this respect from the common law is open to doubt. Sorial, S. Anger, Provocation and Loss of Self-Control: What Does Losing It Really Mean?. The Ministry of Justice remained concerned that there is a risk of the partial defence being used inappropriately, for example, in cold-blooded, gang-related or honour killings. [1963]Google Scholar A.C. 220, 231: "Provocation in law consists mainly of three elementsthe act of provocation, the loss of self-control, . It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide, This PDF is available to Subscribers Only. No 290, 2004, 5.19. Section54 of the UK Justice and Coroners Act 2009. There may be evidence to suggest that an act was provoked immediately before the offence, however, this provocation must have been sufficient to make a 'reasonable man' do as the defendant did and lose self-control. The jury needs to be told that the burden is on the prosecution to satisfy them that the plea fails.92 They should be advised to consider evidence of one of the two recognized triggers. In the case of Ahluwalia the court refused to accept a defence of provocation as the lapse in time was indicative of a 'cooling off period' that was suggestive of a revenge attack. The Law Commission was worried that a loss of self-control requirement would inevitably favour men over women and thought that there was no overriding need to replace it with some other form of subjective requirement;78 rather, it would be sufficient to stipulate that the provocation had not been triggered by a considered desire for revenge, that the defendant should not have engineered or incited it, and that either judges could exclude undeserving cases or that juries could be trusted to do so.79 Ashworth, though, criticized the Commission's approach on theoretical rather than practical groundsit seeks to detach the provocation defence from one of its true rationales, which is that a good reason for partially excusing such defendants is that they acted during a distinct emotional disturbance resulting from what was done to them.80 Ashworth's concern is not with the proposal to abolish the loss of self-control requirement but with the suggestion that there should be nothing put in its place. - Simply ask: was there an actual loss of self-control? We believe that where sexual infidelity is one part in a set of circumstances which led to the defendant losing self-control, the partial defence should succeed or fail on the basis of those circumstances disregarding the element of sexual infidelity (emphasis added); ibid, para 55. Ashworth, n 4 above, 301. In broad terms this is surely a welcome development. There is also a desire to stipulate general standards of reaction to provocation, and the justifiable sense of being seriously wronged requirement is one element of this. Vocation noun. R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 (Court of Appeal) at 16. Arguably therefore, the law should instead put some form of mental or emotional disturbance at the heart of the plea.88 One consequence of that would be the avoidance of the problem in both the old and the new law of satisfactorily reconciling the loss of self-control requirement with acceptance of a time lapse before the fatal assault. Step 1: Actual Loss of Self-Control - This is purely subjective. In Luc Thiet Thuan 39 the majority of the Privy Council declined to take account of the defendant's brain damage when applying the reasonable man standard. Felicity Stewart and Arie Freiberg, Provocation in Sentencing: A Culpability-Based Framework, Current Issues in Criminal Justice 19(3): 283308, p. 291. Although introducing the new defence was designed to change the law for better (referencing to the . The law, however, assumes that there are degrees of loss of self-control. For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription. App. One particular dimension of this was that the law should not expect people to exercise self-control when, though no fault of their own, they were incapable of doing so.42. A proposal can be revoked by giving a notice of revocation to the other party. 2. Conversely, as has already been indicated, the new plea will automatically fail if the defendant acted in a considered desire for revenge, and the longer the time gap between the trigger and the fatal assault, the greater is the risk that the court will infer that the killing was vengeful.86. At this relatively early stage in the life of the new law it is obviously difficult to predict with confidence how it will work in practice, but it is impossible not to be concerned that juries will find it perplexing. Profession noun. Learn more about Institutional subscriptions. Whichever trigger is appropriate, the court must also be satisfied that (a) the trigger was something other than sexual infidelity;61 (b) the trigger was not self-induced; (c) the defendant must not have acted in a considered desire for revenge; and (d) a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or a similar way to D.62 Thus, the reasonable person test at common law has been replaced by a person of normal tolerance and self-restraint etc, and instead of referring to the defendant's characteristics when applying the objective test, we should henceforth refer to the defendant's circumstances. But the majority thought that the distinction between characteristics relevant to the provocation and those relevant to the power of self-control is unrealistic. Profection noun. Elements of the offence. Quite how a loss of self-control could be anything other than temporary is hard to envisage, and the more significant questions surround the suddenness requirement. ), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), p. 15. In this seminal article, Ashworth argued that, with the possible exception of serious assaults, the gravity of any provocation can only sensibly be judged in relation to people of a particular class. produced by provocations and situations like this can be extremely powerful and may cause some people to lose self-control. The Law Commission did consider the alternative concept in the American Model Penal Code, extreme mental or emotional disturbance, but consultation with academics and judges yielded much criticism of vagueness and indiscrimination; and the Commission also feared it would produce considerable case law; see Law Com No 304, n 3 above, para 5.22. - This does not require complete loss of self-control since the actus reus and mens rea are still present for murder. For a detailed and fascinating examination of the history of this defence, see Jeremy Horder, Provocation and Responsibility (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1992). For contrasting views about Smith (Morgan) see eg. ), Loss of Control and Diminished Responsibility: Domestic, Comparative and International Perspectives (London & New York: Routledge 2011), pp. a body of people doing the same kind of work. See Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (Law Com No 304, 2006), especially paras 5.182. Nine Fallacies in, T Macklem and J Gardner, Provocation and Pluralism (2001) 64 MLR 815, RD Mackay and BJ Mitchell, Provoking Diminished Responsibility: Two Pleas Merging into One? [2003] Crim LR 745, J Chalmers, Merging Provocation and Diminished Responsibility: Some Reasons for Scepticism [2004] Crim LR 198, J Gardner and T Macklem, No Provocation without Responsibility: A Reply to Mackay and Mitchell [2004] Crim LR 213. In A-G for Jersey v Holley 43 a majority (six to three) of the court effectively overruled Smith (Morgan) and held that unless they are relevant to the provocation, mental abnormalities should be excluded when applying the reasonable person standard. Robert Solomon, Emotions and Choice, in Not Passions Slave: Emotions and Choice (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003), p. 13. Appleby [2009] EWCA Crim 2693, [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) 46. Bearing in mind that offenders serving a year or more in prison can expect to be released at the half-way stage,98 Ashworth indicated that some of these sentenceswhere the provocation is highseem very low.99 Provocation (now loss of control) manslaughter is a form of mitigated murder, and on average murderers can expect to spend at least 15 or 16 years in prison before being able to apply for release on licence.100 As Ashworth explained, the justification for the low sentences must be based on the offender's reduced culpability arising out of the loss of self-control and partial justification for that loss. The loss of control cannot have been triggered by something else, even if the proven provocation was sufficient. Joshua Dressler (2002), Why Keep the Provocation Defense?, Minnesota Law Review 86(5): 959-1002 at 974. - It replaced the prior defence of provocation. In Morhall the House of Lords held that in the light of section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 juries should be directed to take account of anything they thought was relevant to the assessment of the strength of the provocation. R Holton and S Shute, Self-Control in the Modern Provocation Defence (2007) 27 OJLS 49. When the defendant complained about what she discovered, her unfaithful spouse justified what he had done, shouting and taunting the defendant in hurtful language that it is she (the defendant) who was really responsible for the infidelity. Ashworth refers to this as part of a policy of social defence, n 6 above, 66, 67. Ashworth has persuasively argued, however, that the reaction in this context has not always been properly understood. Emotions do not undermine reason in the ways offenders describe (and courts sometimes accept); nor do they compel people to act in ways they cannot control. B Mitchell, Distinguishing between Murder and Manslaughter in Practice (2007) 71 JCL 318. The new law thus surely makes very heavy demands both of judges and juries. Provocation as a ground for murder denotes more than ordinary anger as the provocation for a killing. Footnote 1 At the heart of the defence is the idea of 'loss of self-control.' Defendants often describe the experience of losing self-control as one where they 'snap' or 'crack' in response to the provocation, and 'explode' into violence. Moreover, there is the danger that a purely objective interpretation of these words will lead to injustice by denying the plea to deserving defendants such as battered women or very young defendants. However, before the enactment of the 2009 Act only provocation not the fear of violence was considered as partial defence of loss of control. The Coroners and . As such, the idea of loss of self-control is an inaccurate and misleading description of the psychological mechanisms at play in cases of emotionally motivated killing, where there may not be any loss of self-control as such. See Law Commission, Partial Defences to Murder (Law Com No 290, 2004), especially Part 3. In Northern Ireland the change in the law took effect from 1 June 2011. As a consequence of section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957, once there was evidence that the defendant had been provoked to lose self-control the matter then had to be passed to the jury, who would decide whether a reasonable person would have reacted as the defendant had. Criminal Law, Philosophy 13, 247269 (2019). It has already been suggested that this distinction between the old and the new law ought not in fact to make much difference. The Commission did, though, acknowledge that EMED has formed the basis for a provocation defence in at least some American jurisdictions, and cannot therefore be dismissed as unworkable. ), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), p. 18. After the decision in Brown [1972] 2 QB 229 (CA). Introduction. The danger in adopting objective requirements is that any individual may, through no fault of his own, be incapable of acting in a way which would have avoided contravening the law. In cases of substantial provocation (over a short period) the starting point should be eight years, within a range of four to nine years; and if the provocation was at a low level over a short time, the starting point should be twelve years, and the range ten years to life imprisonment. The loss of self-control may be due to fear, anger or resentment, but must be present at the time of the killing. Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s 55(6)(c). As indicated above, Ashworth criticized the Law Commission for not recommending something such as an element of emotional disturbance to put in place of the loss of control requirement; n 6 above, 260. Other commentators have argued that EMED is a more accurate and more defensible concept than loss of self-control; see eg Mitchell et al, n 9 above. Over the years the courts adopted various epithets in their attempts to explain what they regarded as an appropriate response by the defendant, one of which was a loss of self-control.10 Although the Court of Appeal in Richens 11 stated that it was wrong to say that the defendant must have completely lost his self-control such that he did not know what he was doingfor that would be more indicative of automatism, which is a complete defencethere was never any clear definition of this subjective requirement. Jeremy Horder, Provocation and Responsibility (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1992), p. 103. The previous New Labour government was not persuaded to implement the proposed restructuring, and the Coalition government concluded that the time is not right to take forward such a substantial reform of our criminal law; see, The government took the view that the term provocation had acquired such negative connotations that it should be abandoned (. Indeed, the common law's insistence that the defendant's reaction be triggered by some form of human conduct was probably rooted in its origins when only a very limited set of circumstances were regarded as sufficient for a successful plea. The difference between provocation and selfdefence is the issue of self-control. A loss of self-control can only occur as a moment of departure from being in control.85 Moreover, the decision to admit evidence of cumulative provocation over a lengthy period, so as to provide the context in which the final incident (which may have been relatively trivial) occurred, effectively undermined the element of suddenness. As well as losing self-control through one of the two triggers, the defendant will only succeed under the new law if a person of D's age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-018-9467-8. Prima facie, the only apparent difference between the old and the new law is that the loss of self-control need no longer be sudden and temporary. But we do punish provoked killers, albeit less severely than murderers. Correspondence to In contrast, it also felt that perpetrators of honour killings should not benefit from the new plea, but instead of expressly excluding this category as well it was content that the high threshold for the words and conduct limb of the partial defence will have the effect of excluding honour killings because such cases will not satisfy the requirements that the circumstances were of an extremely grave character and caused a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged71together with the exemption of cases where the killing resulted from a considered desire for revenge. 2. Although concern about this was expressed by consultees, the government asserted that a loss of self-control is not always inconsistent with situations where a person reacts to an imminent fear of serious violence.84 Unfortunately, there was no comment on cases where the fear is not imminent. Marcia Baron, Gender Issues in the Criminal Law, in John Deigh and David Dolinko (eds. In Morhall Lord Goff explained that in provocation the test's function was to induce the court to compare the defendant's reaction with that of an ordinary person with a normal capacity for self-control.34 In effect, it was a means whereby the courts could distinguish the deserving from the undeserving cases. The implication behind this was that the reasonable person would carry on behaving reasonably even after losing his self-control. In other words, there was a lack of proportion between the real mitigation and the verdict. Nevertheless, there must be a real fear that the retention of the loss of self-control requirement will continue to thwart many deserving cases. 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The treatment of provocation as only a partial defense reflects the assumption Its basic aim was to ensure that the plea would only be available to those who showed a reasonable level of self-control and it thus sought to provide some justification for the loss or angry reaction. . On 4 October 2010 the old common law plea of provocation which, if successful, reduced murder to voluntary manslaughter, was abolished and replaced by the partial defence of loss of control.1 This was the culmination of a crescendo of criticism and frustration over three or four decades of case law, especially (but not exclusively) about (1) the requirement of a loss of self-control, and the apparent bias in favour of male reactions to provocation, and the law's inadequate accommodation of female reactions; and (2) the nature of the normative element in the law and the extent to which personal characteristics of the defendant could be taken into account. Criminal Law and Philosophy Victorian Law Reform Commission 2003, Defences to Homicide: Options Paper, 7.247.25. Hyisung C. Hwang and David Matsumoto, Emotional Expression, in Catharine Abell and Joel Smith (eds. Martha Nussbaum, Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of the Emotions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001), p. 28. If the provoked killer completely lacked the capacity to control his acts, then it would not be just to punish him at all. Graduates who failed to register on time may not be able to join the graduates' procession and may be denied entry into the Chancellor Hall. Susan S.M. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-018-9467-8, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-018-9467-8. 3435. In 1976, shortly before the House of Lords decision in Camplin, an article by Ashworth was published in the Cambridge Law Journal30 in which he essentially put forward the argument which was used by Lord Diplock. Robert Solomon, Emotions and Choice, in Not Passions Slave: Emotions and Choice (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003), p. 10. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury . Although some women clearly have developed mental abnormalities through the abuse, others have not. AP Simester, JR Spencer, GR Sullivan, and GJ Virgo. J Horder, Reshaping the Subjective Element in the Provocation Defence (2005) 25 OJLS 123, A Norrie, The Coroners and Justice Act 2009Partial Defences to Murder (1) Loss of Control [2010] Crim LR 275, AJ Ashworth, Sentencing in Provocation Cases [1975] Crim LR 553. Wesley Moons and Diane Mackie (2007), Thinking Straight While Seeing Red: The Influence of Anger on Information Processing, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33(5): 706720 at 717. The difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter is important to know in any manslaughter charge. If the killing was prompted solely through sexual infidelity or in considered desire for revenge, the plea must fail. 320325, 320. On 4 October 2010 the old common law plea of provocation which, if successful, reduced murder to voluntary manslaughter, was abolished and replaced by the partial defence of loss of control. Loss of self control is the new special and partial defence to murder, latter to the reform. probisyn: artikulo o tadhana sa legal na instrumento, batas, at katulad, nagpapahintulot sa partikular na bagay. Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. ), Loss of Control and Diminished Responsibility: Domestic, Comparative and International Perspectives (London & New York: Routledge 2011), p. 115. If the law was trying to ensure that deserving defendants have shown a reasonable level of self-control, then youth should be regarded as relevant because there is good reason to maintain that a lower standard may be accepted. The forerunner of loss of control was provocation, which was codified by section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 . See the provisions in section54 of the UK Justice and Coroners Act 2009. Yet one obvious category of such casesbattered women who kill their abuserswould still have to surmount the loss of self-control hurdle, and previous experience clearly indicates that many of these women would not be able to rely on the new plea.82 Welcoming the Law Commission's proposal to include the fear of serious violence trigger, the government stated that it should be available even though the violence is not imminent.83 It is, however, not easy to imagine a situation in which the defendant was fearful of non-imminent serious violence and still lost his or (perhaps more likely) her self-control. An anatomical dissection carried out by an experienced anatomist as a demonstration for others. mga probisyn provisions. implementation, and the significant differences between the Law Commission 's recommendations and the reforms implemented by the government. Law Commission (2006), Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, Com. For example, as Andrew Ashworth has pointed out,6 although in practice the provocation commonly did originate from the deceased, following section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 the law was not restricted in this way,7 nor did the provocation have to be directed at the accused.8 Nevertheless, the principal features of the old common law were that the defendant had to show that she had been provoked by some form of human action, that that had caused her to lose her self-control (which she had not regained at the time of inflicting the fatal assault), and that a reasonable person would have killed had she been provoked in the same way. Judges need to have clear lines of direction. The guidelines drafted by the then Sentencing Guidelines Council in 2005 indicate that, as Ashworth had suggested many years earlier,96 the dominant consideration when determining the appropriate sentence in provocation manslaughter should be the objective seriousness of the provocation itself.97 Other factors include the extent and timing of the retaliation, post-offence behaviour, and the use of a weapon. This essay contains a brief review of some of the key elements and concerns about the old common law before turning to explore its statutory replacement. An obvious concern with both the old and almost certainly the new law is the failure to comply with the principle of maximum certainty.106 There was uncertainty about how far the courts would look closely at the evidence of a loss of self-control, about which characteristics would be treated as relevant to the objective test (especially whether they would adopt the Smith or Holley approach), and thus about the relationship between provocation and diminished responsibility. But the Privy Council had the last word on the issue. He then reached out and grabbed the piece of wood. The defence consists, in theory, in the absence of either one of the functions required for capacity: the ability to . The phrase circumstances of D specifically excludes those whose only relevance to D's conduct is that they bear on D's general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint.89 In essence, this reproduces the law after the decision in Holley so that, apart from age and gender, individual characteristics of the defendant will only be attributable to the person with normal tolerance and self-restraint if they are relevant to the triggering event. Conduct giving rise to a sense of grievance or revenge will not suffice: Van Den Hoek v The Queen . grounds of loss of control.4 This article examines the implications of this legal change for sentencing in murder cases. R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 (Court of Appeal). On the face of it, it seems that the New Labour government was heavily influenced by the support it received for the exclusion from various organizations. A Ashworth, Sentencing in Provocation Cases [1975] Crim LR 553. It was not surprising to find such a strong desire to be rid of the old provocation plea, though one of the underlying problems was the struggle to identify a clear rationale behind it. Vocation noun. However, in Smith (Morgan) 41 the majority of the House of Lords decided that in the light of section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 juries should be able to determine which characteristics to take into account, including mental abnormalities. One of the central aims of the new law is to reduce the number of cases in which defendants reduce their liability from murder to manslaughter and to limit the application of the new pleas to exceptional circumstances67hence the extremely grave character requirement. For a fuller discussion of these problems, see. Edwards, Loss of Self-Control: When His Anger is Worth More than Her Fear, in Alan Reed and Michael Bohlander (eds. It is worth making some brief comments about sentencing in provocation manslaughter cases as well as on the substantive law. We do not know how much consistency there is in people's views about when self-control should or should not be exercised, nor do we know the degree of similarity in people's ability to exercise self-control in any given set of circumstances. Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men (New York: Berkley Books 2002), pp. Interestingly, Horder had earlier floated the idea of what he called provoked extreme emotional disturbance as a substitute subjective requirement.81 Indeed, various alternatives to the loss of self-control requirement have been offered, some of which also seek to put emotional disturbance at the core of the subjective test. The provocation must have ACTUALLY caused the defendant to lose control. The precise boundary between serious and non-serious violence may sometimes not be immediately apparent, but the government required that the fear must be of serious violence in order to exclude unmeritorious cases.65 The law does not expressly stipulate that the fear must be of imminent violence, but the government is relying on the loss of self-control condition, the need to fulfil the person of normal tolerance test, and evidence (for example) whether the defendant had sought other protection as being sufficient safeguards to ensure that only deserving cases benefit from the new plea.66, The alternative form of the plea arises where the loss of self-control was triggered by words and/or conduct which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Response to Consultation CP(R)19/08, n 58 above, para 45. Equality Before the Law and Equal Impact of Sanctions: Doing Justice to Differences in Wealth and Employment Status, Sentencing Women: Towards Gender Equality, Proportionate Sentencing and the Rule of Law, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Revisited, Wrongful Acquittals and Unduly Lenient SentencesMisconceived Problems that Provoke Unjust Solutions, 'Years of Provocation, Followed by a Loss of Control', in Lucia Zedner, and Julian V. Roberts (eds), Archaeological Methodology and Techniques, Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning, Literary Studies (African American Literature), Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers), Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature), Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques, Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge, Browse content in Company and Commercial Law, Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law, Private International Law and Conflict of Laws, Browse content in Legal System and Practice, Browse content in Allied Health Professions, Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics, Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology, Browse content in Science and Mathematics, Study and Communication Skills in Life Sciences, Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry, Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography, Browse content in Engineering and Technology, Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building, Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology, Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science), Environmentalist and Conservationist Organizations (Environmental Science), Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science), Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science), Natural Disasters (Environmental Science), Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science), Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science), Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System, Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction, Psychology Professional Development and Training, Browse content in Business and Management, Information and Communication Technologies, Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice, International and Comparative Criminology, Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics, Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs, Conservation of the Environment (Social Science), Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science), Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science), Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science), Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies, Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences, Browse content in Regional and Area Studies, Browse content in Research and Information, Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work, Human Behaviour and the Social Environment, International and Global Issues in Social Work, Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice, Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696796.001.0001, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696796.003.0008, 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198256960.001.0001.
Synyster Gates Acoustic Guitar For Sale,
Michael Jordan Upper Deck 95,
Shivam Patel Old Bridge, Nj Obituary,
Cottonwood Crossing Apartments,
Senco Upholstery Staples,
Articles D