R v Letuka (CRI/T 45 of 92) [1997] LSHC 66 (20 August 1997)

IN THE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO CRI/T/45/92 In the m a t t er of: R EX vs T A H L E HO L E T U KA J U D G M E NT Delivered by the H o n o u r a b le M r s. Justice K. J. G u ni on the 2 0 th d ay of A u g u st 1 9 97 T h is a c c u s ed is c h a r g ed w i th the c r i me of m u r d e r. It is alleged that on 18th M a r ch 1 9 8 9, at HA L E S H O E LE in the district of Leribe, the a c c u s ed did unlawfully a nd intentionally kill o ne S E P H U LA M A K E P E. T he facts of this c a se briefly are that the d e c e a s ed S E P H U LA M A K E PE w as s e en w a l k i ng along the footpath w h i ch p a s s es by the y a rd of PW 7 M A B A T HO K H O A N Y A N E. D e c e a s ed w as travelling in the direction of H l o t se w h i ch is across the river w h i ch the d e c e a s ed w as w a l k i ng t o w a r d s. PW 7 w as d o i ng her laundry outside her h o u se in the fore court. S he sent a child to go into the h o u se a nd fetch her s o me m o re water. S he w as standing up w h i le waiting for m o re w a t er w h en suddenly she s aw the accused p e r s on hurriedly w a l k i ng t h r o u gh her yard. A c c u s ed w as trespassing on PW 7's property PW 7 w as a b o ut to ask the a c c u s ed p e r s on w hy he w as trespassing w h en s he realised that the a c c u s ed p e r s on w as terribly in a hurry. S he just l o o k ed at him w h en he w a l k ed p a s s ed w i t h o ut e v en greeting her. It is c u s t o m a ry in S e s o t ho tradition to greet a p e r s on y ou w a lk p a s s e d. A c c o r d i ng to PW 7 her y a rd w as f e n c ed initially T he f e n ce h as fallen d o wn at s o me points w h e re fencing p o l es h a ve b e en r e m o v ed by v a n d a l s. T he a c c u s ed j u m p ed o ut of PW 7's yard. A c c u s ed w a l k ed straight to the d e c e a s ed w ho w as still travelling along the footpath. On arrival to w h e re the d e c e a s ed w as this a c c u s ed i m m e d i a t e l y, w i t h o ut uttering a w o r d, attacked the d e c e a s ed by hitting h im w i th a stick. T he a c c u s ed a i m ed his b l o ws at the h e ad w h i ch the d e c e a s ed shielded or protected w i th his a r ms together w i th the h a n d b ag w h i ch he carried. A c c u s ed p e r s on hit the d e c e a s ed m a ny times w h i le the d e c e a s ed persistently shielded his h e a d. D e c e a s ed t o ok o ut of that b ag a small a xe w h i ch he u s ed to c o n t i n ue shielding a nd protecting his h e ad against the b l o ws of a stick f r om the a c c u s e d. T h at a xe fell a w ay f r om the d e c e a s ed w h en it w as hit w i th a stick by the a c c u s e d. A c c u s ed hit the d e c e a s ed with the stick on the k n e e s. T he d e c e a s ed fell d o w n. T he a c c u s ed n ow b e l a b o u r ed the d e c e a s ed w ho w as then lying flat on his face on the g r o u n d. T he a c c u s ed p r o c e e d ed to pick up that a xe w h i ch he h ad hit out of the d e c e a s e d 's h a nd after the d e c e a s ed h ad p r o d u c ed it f r om his b ag a nd u s ed it to w a rd off the b l ow the a c c u s ed directed at his h e a d. A r m ed w i th the a xe n ow the a c c u s ed p r o c e ed to c h op indiscriminately on the h e ad area of the d e c e a s e d 's b o d y. PW 7 raised the a l a rm by s c r e a m i ng for help w h i le at the s a me time s he a p p e a l ed to the a c c u s ed p e r s on to refrain f r om his actions. PW 7 s aw PW 5 riding p a s s ed at s o me distance. S he called out to h im by his n a me a nd a s k ed h im to c o me to help. PW 5 h e a rd the cry a nd l o o k ed in the direction it c a m e. He s aw t wo m e n; o ne in w h i te overalls a nd the other d r e s s ed in blue top a nd k h a ki or darkish f a r m e rs trousers. T h e se m en a p p e a r ed to be involved in a fight. PW 5 also h e a rd the crackling of the stick or sticks. He s aw b l o ws as sticks or stick f l ew into the air. A l t h o u gh PW 5 w as sufficiently close to m a ke t h o se o b s e r v a t i o n s, he h ad to go a r o u nd o t h er p e o p l e 's y a r ds to get to the s c e ne of the c r i m e. He h a s t e n e d. He w as still riding on his h o r s e b a c k. W h en PW 5 a p p r o a c h ed the s c e ne of the c r i me the m an in w h i te overalls hurriedly left the scene. PW 5 t h o u g ht that he w as running a w a y. He alighted f r om his h o r se a nd attempted to a p p ly first aid to the d e c e a s ed b e c a u se he n o t i c ed that the d e c e a s ed w as b l e e d i ng profusely a nd lying on his face s l o p i ng d o w n w a r d s. PW 5 instructed the little b oy he s aw there to ride on his h o r s e b a ck into the village a nd raise the a l a rm as he w e n t. PW 5 w as u n d er the i m p r e s s i on that the m an in w h i te overalls h ad run a w ay after killing the d e c e a s e d. PW 5 instructed this little b oy to ride into the village a nd request the p e o p le to a p p r e h e nd this m an in w h i te overalls. PW 5 w as a t t e m p t i ng to assist the d e c e a s ed by turning his h e ad up the slop direction so that he c o u ld s l ow the f l ow of b l o od so that he c o u ld try to stop the b l e e d i n g. T h is a c c u s ed arrived at the s c e ne again. PW 5 h ad r e c o g n i s ed the d e c e a s ed as he turned his h e ad that he is S E P H U LA M A K E P E, the f e l l ow villager. W h en the a c c u s ed arrived PW 5 r e c o g n i s ed a nd identified h im as a n o t h er fellow villager a nd m o re o v er that he is a g r a n d s on of his called T A H L E HO L E T U K A. At this juncture the a c c u s ed w as a r m ed w i th a knife in o ne h a nd a nd the stick in the other. T he a c c u s ed u n c l a s p ed or o p e n ed the knife w h i ch w as h e ld in his right h a n d. He then a p p r o a c h ed the d e c e a s ed a nd PW 5 w ho w as standing astride a c r o ss the d e c e a s ed as he w as a t t e m p t i ng to raise the d e c e a s e d 's h e ad a little h i g h er in order to s l ow a nd stop the f l ow of b l o od f r om his h e ad w o u n ds w h i ch w e re b l e e d i ng p r o f u s e l y; PW 5 r e p r i m a n d ed the a c c u s e d. P e r h a ps thinking he c o u ld c o m m a nd s o me respect f r om this a c c u s ed PW 5, pointed out to h im that he c a n n ot do b ad things e v en in his p r e s e n c e. T he a c c u s ed persisted to c o me close despite the r e p r i m a nd a nd appeals not to assault the d e c e a s ed a ny further. PW 5 tried to u se his horse w h ip to stop h i m. T he a c c u s ed hit a w ay that w h ip with his stick. It fell far a w ay from PW 5. T he a c c u s ed then c a me a nd stabbed the d e c e a s ed with a knife at the b a c k. T h is d e c e a s ed after receiving a stab w o u nd at the b a ck turned on his back, exposing his front w h i ch the a c c u s ed repeatedly s t a b b ed with the s a me knife. As if he h ad not d o ne e n o u gh d a m a ge on the deceased's b o d y, this a c c u s ed c h a n g ed w e a p o n s, he n ow held the stick in the right h a nd a nd o n ce m o re belaboured the h e ad a nd face of the d e c e a s e d. Thereafter he o n ce again left. He returned after a little while. A c c o r d i ng to PW 5 the a c c u s ed s e e m ed to be persisting in his actions. PW 5 picked up a stone with w h i ch he threatened to hit the a c c u s e d. He pointed out to the a c c u s ed that he regarded the a c c u s ed to be fighting h im a nd not the d e c e a s ed a n y m o r e. T he a c c u s ed explained that he is c o m i ng there only to retrieve the small axe. PW 5 allowed him to retrieve it. PW 5 h ad not seen this a xe as it w as c o v e r ed c o m p l e t e ly by the d e c e a s e d 's blood. PW 5 s aw it for the first time w h en this a c c u s ed picked it up. A c c o r d i ng to the e ye witnesses there w as a pool of b l o od w h e re the deceased a nd that w e a p on w e re lying. T he a c c u s ed p e r s on w e nt a w a y, this time for good. T h o se people w ho h ad gathered c a me a nd assisted PW 5 to take the d e c e a s ed to the m o t or vehicle w h i ch transported h im to the hospital. T he accused d o es not d e ny a ny allegations m a de against h im by these t wo e ye witnesses PW 5 and PW 7. T he stick the first w e a p on u s ed by this a c c u s ed against the d e c e a s ed is the property of the accused. A c c u s ed w as seen by PW 7 w a l k i ng fast through her yard a nd i m m e d i a t e ly attacking the d e c e a s ed by hitting h im with that stick. It w as claimed by his counsel by questions to c r o wn witnesses that accused acted in self defence. D e f e n ce counsel s e e m ed to suggest that the d e c e a s ed w as the aggressor. T he deceased attacked the a c c u s ed w ho acted in defence of his p e r s o n. T h e re is no e v i d e n ce w h a t s o e v er to s h ow this c o u rt that the a c c u s ed w as attacked at a ny t u ne by the d e c e a s ed or a n y o n e. T he e v i d e n ce led b e f o re this court s h o w ed us that the a c c u s ed w as the a g g r e s s or a nd attacker. A c c o r d i ng to PW 7 w ho w i t n e s s ed this assault f r om start to the e n d, the d e c e a s ed w as assaulted like a child. T he d e c e a s ed w as receiving the b l o w s. N ot e v en o n ce did the d e c e a s ed deliver a single b l ow to the a c c u s e d. T he "lebetlela" stick u s ed by the a c c u s ed to deliver b l o ws on the d e c e a s e 's h e a d, a r ms a nd h a n ds w h i ch the d e c e a s ed u s ed to protect his h e a d, is a d a n g e r o us w e a p o n. D e a th w as d ue to " h e ad injury w i th brain injury" a c c o r d i ng to the report of p o s t - m o r t em e x a m i n a t i o n. T he e ye w i t n e ss s aw the a c c u s ed hit the d e c e a s ed repeatedly on the h e ad area w i th that stick. T h o se h e ad injuries are the result of the u se of that stick a nd an a x e. T he R e p o rt of P o s t - m o r t em e x a m i n a t i on is v e ry s k e t c hy a nd lacking in details b ut n e v e r t h e l e s s, consistent w i th the e v i d e n ce of the e ye w i t n e s s e s. V e ry belatedly, the d e f e n ce c o u n s el s u g g e s t ed in his a d d r e ss at the c o n c l u s i on of the c a s e, that the a c c u s ed f e a r ed that the d e c e a s ed h ad a g un in his h a n d b ag or p o c k et b o o k. T he a c c u s ed therefore m o u n t ed this vicious attack to d e f e nd h i m s e lf against the possible u se of a g un w h i ch he b e l i e v ed to be in the d e c e a s e d 's p o c k et b o o k. W h at c o u ld possibly h ad g i v en h im that belief w as n e v er p ut b e f o re this court. Beliefs especially the o n es that instil fear in a p e r s o n s 's m i n d, m u st be f o u n d ed on actions or w o r ds of a n o t h er p e r s o n. T h ey c a n n ot be just p l u c k ed f r om the passing w i n d. T h e re is no o ne w ho testified to the effect that this a c c u s ed w as in a n y w ay threatened by the d e c e a s ed or a n y o n e. T he a c c u s ed p e r s o n 's fears a b o ut the u se of a g un are u n f o u n d ed a nd we totally reject t he s u g g e s t i on that he w as d e f e n d i ng h i m s e lf F or private d e f e n ce to s u c c e ed the a c c u s ed m u st satisfy the court that there w as e m i n e nt d a n g er to his life. T he a c c u s ed did n ot g i ve e v i d e n c e. He h ad a right to r e m a in silent. He exercised that right. No o ne testified on his b e h a lf a b o ut a ny e m i n e nt d a n g er that w as p o s ed by the d e c e a s ed p e r s on or a n y o n e. T h at small a xe w h i ch easily got c o m p l e t e ly c o v e r ed by the b l o od f l o w i ng f r om the d e c e a s e d 's w o u n ds w as by its nature a nd size no threat. T he a c c u s ed w as n ot e v en a w a re of it until it w as p r o d u c e d. It is totally ignored by the d e f e n ce a nd correctly so if I m ay a d d. T he a c c u s ed w as already a r m ed w i th a "lebetlela" stick w h i ch he u s ed to l a u n ch the attack on the p e r s on of the d e c e a s e d. T h at a xe w as no m a t c h. R v V AN V U U R EN 1 9 61 (3) SA 3 05 ( E) at 3 0 8; R EX v P O QA 1 9 79 ( 1 ) L LR P a ge 1 61 at 1 6 9. T he a xe w as hit only o n ce a nd it fell. T he strength of the p e r s on w ho w as a r m ed w i th that a xe w as m i n i m al c o m p a r ed w i th the p o w er a nd force of the stick w h i ch hit it a w a y. T h is w o u ld be relevant w h en it c o m es to the consideration of the a m o u nt of the force u s ed in self defence. T he w e a p o ns u s ed by this a c c u s ed a nd the force applied s h o u ld be c o m m e n s u r a te w i th the force a nd w e a p o ns feared, R v Z I K A L A LA 1 9 53 (2) SA 5 68 ( A ). It w as n e v er s u g g e s t ed to c r o wn w i t n e s s es that this a c c u s ed feared an e m i n e nt attack w i th an axe. P e r h a ps the d e f e n ce c o u n s el felt the g un is a superior w e a p on to the o n es u s ed by the a c c u s e d. T h r o u g h o ut the cross-examination of the c r o wn w i t n e s s e s, it w as n e v er s u g g e s t ed that the a c c u s ed feared that the d e c e a s ed w as a r m ed w i th a g u n. T he o v e r w h e l m i ng e v i d e n ce by e ye w i t n e s s es s h o w ed the d e c e a s ed w as a helpless victim w ho e v en failed to protect himself. D e c e a s ed h ad no g un in his possession. It w as PW 5's e v i d e n ce that while he r e p r i m a n d ed the a c c u s ed in an effort to stop h im f r om perpetrating further assault on the d e c e a s e d, the d e c e a s ed after receiving a stab w o u nd at the b a c k, turned o v er - e x p o s i ng his t u m my a nd chest - u p on w h i ch the a c c u s ed inflicted m o re stab w o u n d s. A n o t h er d e f e n ce that w as raised on b e h a lf of the a c c u s ed is p r o v o c a t i o n. In terms of Section 3 ( 1) (a), (b) a nd (2) of C R I M I N AL L AW ( H O M I C I DE A M E N D M E N T) P R O C L A M A T I ON 42 of 1 9 5 9, the crime of m u r d er m ay be r e d u c ed to the crime of culpable h o m i c i de if the court is satisfied that death w as c a u s ed in the heat of passion by s u d d en provocation. T he significance of the underlining is for e m p h a s i s. First of all it m u st be established that there w as provocation. T he nature of the assault perpetrated by the a c c u s ed on the d e c e a s ed as described by the e ye witnesses, gives o ne the impression that the a c c u s ed w as very angry. PW 5 specifically claimed to h a ve s e en signs of e x t r e me a n g er on the face of the a c c u s ed at the time he returned to the scene of the crime a r m ed with a knife a nd a stick. T he rage w h i ch possessed this a c c u s ed m u st h a ve b e en self induced. No o ne testified before this court to s h ow us h ow this accused c a me to be so extremely angry. T h e re is a very faint suggestion that there w as a dispute a b o ut the piece of land b e t w e en the families of the deceased a nd the accused. N o t h i ng w as ever said by the a c c u s ed or his counsel in the cross-examination of the c r o wn witnesses regarding this l a nd dispute. W h a t e v er p r o v o k ed the a c c u s ed w as n e v er put before this court. T he existence of land dispute if this accused w as settling it, m e r e ly s h o ws the m o t i ve for the accused to take the l aw into his o wn hands. It c a n n ot be regarded as the c a u se of p r o v o c a t i on w h i ch could operate to reduce the c r i me of m u r d er to culpable h o m i c i d e. T h e re is no m e n t i on of a specific date on w h i ch the d e c e a s ed successfully s u ed the parents of the a c c u s ed for the possession or use of the residential site in question. T h e re m u st not be a cooling off period b e t w e en the time the person receives provocation a nd the time that p e r s on takes a m u r d e r o us action as the result of that provocation. R E G I NA V M A S A K A LE M P H O SI 1 9 63 - 66 H i gh C o m m i s s i on Territory L aw R e p o rt at 1 7; R EX v H L O A R LE 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 70 L LR P a ge 121 at 1 28 E -F T he a c c u s ed d o es not d e ny that he h ad the requisite intention to kill the d e c e a s e d. He v a g u e ly s o u g ht to be e x c u s ed f r om his action by c l a i m i ng he w as p r o v o k e d. T he a c c u s ed s h o u ld h a ve testified before the c o u rt to s h ow the court the t y pe of p r o v o c a t i on w h i ch he received. No e v i d e n ce w as led on b e h a lf of the a c c u s ed to s h ow the court h ow he w as p r o v o k e d, a nd by w h o m. T he court w as therefore in no position to m a ke a finding as to the existence of p r o v o c a t i o n. It w as s u g g e s t ed to c r o wn w i t n e s s es at the t i me of c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on that t he d e c e a s ed p r o v o k ed the a c c u s e d. PW 7 w ho w i t n e s s ed the e n c o u n t er b e t w e en the a c c u s ed a nd the d e c e a s ed f r om the b e g i n n i ng to the e nd d e n i ed v e h e m e n t ly that the d e c e a s ed p r o v o k ed the a c c u s ed in a ny m a n n er w h a t s o e v e r. W h at PW 7 w i t n e s s ed w as the attack by the a c c u s ed of the d e c e a s ed w i t h o ut a n y o ne of t h em saying, a n y t h i ng or d o i ng anything. T he intention to kill is s e l d om expressed. A l m o st at all times, the intent to kill is g l e a n ed f r om the s u r r o u n d i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es of the c a s e. T he factors w h i ch help the court to d e t e r m i ne the e x i s t e n ce of the intent to kill are the w e a p o ns used; the seriousness of the injuries inflicted a nd the p l a ce on the b o dy selected to inflict the injuries. T he u se of the "lebetlela" stick s h o ws the a c c u s e d 's determination to c a u se serious injury. E v en after the d e c e a s ed w as r e n d e r ed useless a nd w as lying helplessly on the g r o u n d, t he a c c u s ed w e nt to fetch a knife w h i ch he u s ed to stab the d e c e a s ed m o re t h an o n c e. A c c o r d i ng to the e ye witnesses the a c c u s ed s t a b b ed the d e c e a s ed m a ny t i m es b o th at the b a ck a nd front of his b o d y. T h o se present at the s c e ne of the c r i me p o i n t ed o ut to the a c c u s ed that he s h o u ld stop w h at he w as d o i n g. T h is w as said m a ny t i m es e v en prior to his attack using a knife. To PW 5 the a c c u s ed e x p r e s s ed his intent to kill the d e c e a s ed a l t h o u gh not in so m a ny w o r d s. T he w i t n e s s es p o i n t ed o ut to the a c c u s ed that he s h o u ld stop assaulting further this d e c e a s e d. T he a c c u s ed is alleged to h a ve said, " ke batla ho ts'oareloa n t ho e p h e l a n g" translated literally as "I w a nt to be arrested for s o m e t h i ng substantial or m o re serious". T h is is a c o m m on s a y i ng by violent p e o p le w ho resist restraining by t h o se p r e s e nt a nd w ho try to restrain t h em f r om perpetrating violent actions. In the c a se of m u r d er as in o ur present c a se the a c c u s ed w as u n d e r s t o od to m e an that he s h o u ld be arrested for m u r d e r. A p a rt f r om clearly d e m o n s t r a t i ng his intent to kill by his s a v a ge a nd brutal assault of the d e c e a s ed this a c c u s ed expressly said he w a n t ed to kill the d e c e a s e d. T he resort to the u se of the knife against the p e r s on w ho w as lying prostrate on the g r o u nd a nd therefore p o s i ng no d a n g er to a n y o ne clearly indicates intention to kill plus positive desire to kill S E L LO L E M P H A NE a nd O t h e rs V R EX (1) L L R ( C A) 1 9 80 at p a ge 5 8. T h is a c c u s ed as I h a ve p o i n t ed o ut earlier o n, he did e x p r e ss his desire to put an e nd to the d e c e a s e d 's life. T he d e c e a s ed w as p l a c ed on the e m p ty grain s a c ks w h i ch w e re u s ed to c o n v ey h im f r om the s c e ne of the c r i me to the r o ad w h e re t he m o t or vehicle w as waiting to carry him to the Hospital. It is s u g g e s t ed by the d e f e n ce c o u n s el that by putting the d e c e a s ed on t h o se s a c ks a nd sail at the b a ck of a b a k k ie contributed to the c a u se of d e a t h. On the p o s t - m o r t em e x a m i n a t i on report the c a u se of d e a th is clearly spelt out as d ue to " h e ad injury w i th brain injury". H ow t he carrying of t he d e c e a s ed on the e m p ty s a c ks a nd laying h im on the sail at the b a ck of the v an contributed the " h e ad injury w i th brain injury" w as n ot clearly spelt out by M r. Mafantiri. T h e re w as m a s s i ve bleeding. T he e ye w i t n e s s es s p o ke of a lot of b l o od pouring out of the h e ad w o u nd at the b a c k. T h e re w as a p a d d le of b l o od in w h i ch the a xe w h i ch w as later retrieved by the a c c u s e d, w as i m m e n s e d. No d o u bt the d e c e a s ed lost a lot of b l o o d. T h at c a n n ot be the fault of t h o se w ho assisted the d e c e a s ed to go to the hospital. It is totally u n r e a s o n a b le to s u g g e st that by carrying the d e c e a s ed on the e m p ty grain b ag c a u s ed m o re bleeding. T he s a c ks a nd sail w e re u s ed a c c o r d i ng to the witnesses to protect the floor of the v an f r om the blood. T h o se s a c ks w e re intended to a b s o rb the b l o o d. T h ey did just that. As the result they w e re s o a k ed in deceased's blood. T h e re w as no w a y, s h o wn to this court, that the sacks c a u s ed m o re bleeding A l t h o u gh there is e v i d e n ce that the d e c e a s ed lost a lot of b l o o d, the c a u se of death is not the loss of blood. T he death of the deceased w as caused by the accused. T h at is w hy he w as f o u nd guilty of m u r d e r. On the question of Extenuation the court f o u nd no facts that c o u ld possibly be regarded as constituting extenuating circumstances. This a c c u s ed w as therefore f o u nd guilty of m u r d er without extenuating circumstances. T he m a n n er in w h i ch the d e c e a s ed w as assaulted w as so brutal that it demonstrated the highest degree of cruelty. T he pleas of m e r cy a nd appeals to stop fell on a c c u s e d 's d e af ear. He w as so d e t e r m i n ed to kill he m a de sure he left the d e c e a s ed no c h a n ce to survive. To sentence this a c c u s ed to anything than death w o u ld be doing h im a disfavour. A c c u s ed w o u ld not only be surprised a nd s h o c k e d, he will be disappointed as it appears f r om his s a v a ge assault of the d e c e a s ed that he w a n t ed a nd desired nothing short of death. T he brutality d e m o n s t r a t ed by the accused in the m a n n er he assaulted the d e c e a s ed exhibit only aggravating features. L a u n c h i ng u n p r o v o k ed assault on an u n a r m ed old m an with d a n g e r o us w e a p o ns are an aggravating circumstances. P o u n d i ng with a h e a vy stick s u ch as "lebetlela" on the h e ad of a h u m an being m u st be an aggravation. W o r se still w h en s u ch p o u n d i ng is carried on while the victim is lying prostrate on the ground. O ur search in this w h o le r e c o rd disclosed only aggravating factors. T h at is w hy this a c c u s ed w as found guilty of m u r d er with no extenuating or mitigating circumstances. It is o r d e r ed that he be returned to c u s t o dy a nd that he be h a n g ed by the n e ck until he is d e a d. I a g r ee : 1 st A s s e s s or : 2 nd A s s e s s or I do n ot a g r ee : 1st A s s e s s or : 2 nd A s s e s s o r: K. J. G U NI J U D GE For D e f e n ce : M r. Mafantiri For C r o wn : M r. Q h o m a ne