Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit

NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE

Cour de justice du Nunavut
Citation:

R. v. Ipeelee, 2015 NUCJ 38

Date:
Docket:
Registry:

20151112

Crown:

Her Majesty the Queen

08-15-139; 08-15-251; 08-15-252

Iqaluit

-andAccused:

Pauloosie Ipeelee

________________________________________________________________________
Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Sharkey

Counsel (Crown):
Counsel (Accused):

D. Garson
S. Foulds

Location Heard:
Date Heard:
Matters:

Iqaluit, Nunavut
November 10, 2015
Criminal Code, 344(1)(b) x 2, 335

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

Table of Contents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ................................................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 3
A. Procedural background .......................................................................................... 3
B. Sentences imposed ................................................................................................ 3
C. Some practical sentencing considerations ........................................................ 4
II. EVIDENCE.................................................................................................................... 6
A. The first robbery....................................................................................................... 6
B. The second robbery ................................................................................................ 7
C. The accuseds personal circumstances and medical condition ....................... 8
III.
A.

Submissions ......................................................................................................... 12
Defence ............................................................................................................. 12

B. Crown ...................................................................................................................... 12
IV. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 13
V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 17

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Procedural background
[1]

Two days ago, on 10 November 2015, I imposed a sentence upon

Pauloosie Ipeelee. During the course of the proceedings, both Crown
and Defence Counsel referred to Mr. Ipeelee simply as Pauloosie. For
the sake of consistency, I will do the same.

[2]

The short timeline between the entry of his guilty pleas and the
passing of sentence was not sufficient to allow for any articulation of
the reasons for judgement. Accordingly, I advised counsel that I would
provide [these reasons for] Judgment within a couple of days.

[3]

In this case, I had before me an 18-year-old Inuit man, with no

previous criminal record, who had been clinically diagnosed with Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorder [FASD]. He pled guilty to two very serious
charges of robbery and a single charge of joyriding on a snowmobile.
This latter charge is of little significance.

[4]

The first robbery occurred at a coffee shop. Pauloosie was outside,

sitting in the back seat of the get-away car, while a young offender
went inside the coffee shop and brandished a knife at two young store
clerks in an attempt to have them turn over the stores money. The
second robbery occurred at a retail store. Pauloosie committed this
robbery alone. Although he was not armed, his face was partially
masked and he threatened the store clerk with violence if the clerk did
not turn over the money.

[5]

The joyriding charge took place about a week before the first of the
two robberies. The facts of this charge are not remarkable, except
that the machine involved was not damaged. Pauloosie turned himself
in to police shortly afterwards.

B. Sentences imposed
[6]

I imposed a sentence of 289 days imprisonment for the robbery at the

retail store and the same period for the robbery where a knife was
brandished by the young offender. These sentences were to be
served concurrently. I imposed another concurrent 10 days of jail for
the joyriding charge.

[7]

At the time I passed sentence, just a couple of days ago, Pauloosie

had already served 278 days of remand custody; however, he was
not eligible for any enhanced remand credit. Accordingly, the
remaining jail time he would need to serve moving forward would be
only 11 days.

[8]

I also imposed a three-year probationary period. The most important

condition of this probation was that Pauloosie was required to reside,
for the entire three-year period, in a secure southern residential
treatment centre. Finally, I imposed several ancillary orders: a 10-year
firearms prohibition, an order for DNA samples, and a $500.00 victim
of crime surcharge.

C. Some practical sentencing considerations

[9]

This case was one where the Court was somewhat caught short, so
to speak.

[10] The Crown provided me with some case authority respecting the
appropriate sentencing approach in robbery cases. Defence Counsel,
however, essentially requested that I impose a rehabilitative or
restorative sentence where a penitentiary term would normally be
appropriate and proper. Specifically, I was asked by Defence
Counsel, on relatively short notice, to order a long-term residential
treatment centre placement instead of sentencing Pauloosie to further
jail time.
[11] Pauloosie entered his guilty pleas only a couple of weeks prior, on 29
October 2015. On that day, Pauloosies lawyer presented the Court
with some 60 pages of sentencing material. This was the first time
that any of these documents were placed before the Court. The
sentencing material that was provided included a medical diagnosis of
Pauloosies condition, results from extensive forensic testing and
assessments and, finally, case authorities and academic articles
dealing with the sentencing of offenders afflicted with Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome [FAS] and other FASDs. The window of opportunity for the
Court to impose the sentence urged by Defence Counsel, however,
was narrow. The timeline that would have allowed for a residential
placement was continuously shrinking as the clock counted down the
final days of the case.

[12] I pause to note that I make no criticism of Defence Counsel for the
late filing of these materials. Counsel has articulated the institutional
and administrative hurdles he had to overcome during the past few
months to put together this comprehensive sentencing proposal. I
accept his reasons. Indeed, I commend Defence Counsel for his
efforts and for his high degree of client care in this case.
[13] From the testimony that was heard, it appears that the placement in
the residential treatment centre was specially arranged and secured
for a period beginning next week, on 16 November 2015. Defense
counsel has worked, with the help of various government officials, to
secure this placement. The funding is in place, the institution involved
is well aware of Pauloosies situation, and he has been positively
assessed as a suitable resident. During testimony, however, it
became clear that if a placement commencing next week was not
imposed, then the possibility of future placement would become
uncertain. After November 16th, the position held for Pauloosie will no
longer be securely reserved for him. Simply put, beds are scarce at
this residential treatment centre. If any placement is to be made as
part and parcel of the sentence imposed, it will have to be now or,
perhaps, never.
[14] An important aspect of the sentence urged by Defence Counsel is, of
course, the fact that the imposition of such a sentence would
necessarily result in a lengthy period of isolation from society. In this
way, there would be both a punitive and denunciatory aspect to the
requested sentence in a practical sense, at the very least. Indeed, if I
were to accede to Defence Counsels request, the practical end result
would be that Pauloosie would face a longer restriction on his
freedom than if I were to sentence him to a federal penitentiary term
of 2 and years - the original position put forth by the Crown. There
is no dispute over the institutions reputability or security.
[15] In this regard, I pause to note two points:
1. I am keenly aware that, as far as punishment is concerned,
Pauloosies time as an inmate in a federal prison would be much
harsher than time essentially spent as a patient in a residential
treatment centre; and

2. I am confident that, on the basis of the evidence before me, if I did

facilitate a long-term placement in a residential treatment centre, I
would not simply be foisting a dangerous criminal on an
unsuspecting southern community.

II. EVIDENCE
A. The first robbery
[16] The first robbery took place on 10 February 2015. It involved the
coffee shop.
[17] Pauloosie was with three other individuals: a young man around his
age, an older fellow whom I will simply refer to as Mr. X, and a 16year-old young offender. Mr. X was the mastermind in this robbery.
[18] Counsel has informed me that Mr. X has been behind more than one
robbery of this kind. It seems that he is driven to such activity by a
desperate need to settle some drug-related debts.
[19] It was around the time of this first robbery that Pauloosie, out of
desperation himself, had fallen in with the wrong crowd. He was living
on and off at Mr. Xs place. He had no fixed address or place to live
and was essentially couch surfing, mooching food and dope from
various acquaintances. Mr. X was one such acquaintance.
[20] On the day of the offence, Mr. X invited the others to go for a ride.
While they were driving around, he told them the plan that he had
hatched. Mr. X had a confederate a woman working inside the
coffee shop who would send a text advising when the manager
stepped out to do errands.
[21] Eventually, Mr. X received such a text. He then pressured the young
offender to go into the coffee shop with a knife. The youth went into
the shop brandishing the knife at the two young female clerks, both of
whom were quite obviously frightened to death.

[22] The young offender demanded money and the clerks handed over
approximately $1,000.00. He then ran back to the car, at which point
Mr. X directed the driver to a secluded spot. Mr. X then counted the
money and gave the young people, including Pauloosie, some dope
to smoke. Mr. X did not distribute any of the money. The next day, Mr.
X split the loot from the robbery with his female confederate, the
coffee shop employee who had sent the text to inform him that the
coast was clear.
[23] In terms of liability, Defence Counsel has conceded that Pauloosies
knowledge of what was to occur prior to the robbery, as well as his
continual presence in the car, constitutes sufficient encouragement to
conclude that Pauloosie was a party to the offence.
B. The second robbery
[24] The second robbery took place one week after the coffee shop
robbery, on 17 February 2015. It occurred at the retail store.
[25] Pauloosie was still living from house to house and among the same
group of people that were involved in the earlier robbery. He was
staying with one of the main players involved in this type of activity,
who happened to be out of town at the time. Desperate for both food
and grass, Pauloosie decided to pull off a robbery on his own.
[26] He entered a local retail store through the front entrance, walking past
the main floor cashiers with his face fully visible so as to not arouse
suspicion. He went upstairs, approaching the lone cashier on the
second floor. This time, he covered his face with either a ski mask or
a scarf. Pauloosie was not armed, nor did he threaten to use any sort
of weapon. He did, however, threaten the clerk by saying, give me
your fuckin money or Ill hurt you. The clerk, who was terrified,
handed over approximately $1,300.00. Pauloosie then fled the store.
[27] This particular store has video cameras in place to detect suspicious
activity and other extraordinary events. Sometime after the robbery,
one of the store managers (who also happened to be Pauloosies
cousin) was studying the video recording when he recognized
Pauloosies distinctive jacket and the part of his face that had been
partially uncovered.

[28] Pauloosie was arrested the next day, on 18 February 2015. He

admitted his guilt to the police and told them about both robberies.
C. The accuseds personal circumstances and medical condition
(i). The accuseds background

[29] Pauloosie turned 18 shortly before the first robbery. While he has no
previous criminal history as a youth, young Pauloosie has been a
child of the street for most of his life. He was 5 years old when he was
abandoned by his alcoholic mother. Before that, he witnessed much
domestic violence between his mother and her male partner. This
male partner eventually abandoned both Pauloosie and his mother. I
have been told by Counsel that Pauloosie never considered his
mothers partner to be any kind of father figure. To the contrary, as a
young boy, Pauloosies only thoughts about this man were to wish
that the fellow was dead.
[30] It is clear that Pauloosie really had no traditional upbringing. Counsel
has informed me that, when Pauloosie was very young, his mother
would blow marijuana smoke into his lungs. After his mother
abandoned him, he was raised for the most part by his grandmother.
While his grandmother did the best she could, Pauloosie still spent
much of his time as a young boy essentially on the street.
[31] Eventually, in 2009, Pauloosie was given a placement at Ranch Ehrlo.
Ranch Ehrlo is a residential youth treatment centre in Saskatchewan.
Pauloosie was 12 or 13 years old.
[32] It was at Ranch Ehrlo that Pauloosie was finally able to get some
professional help for the medical challenges he faced. He responded
well to his various counsellors and caregivers during his time there.
[33] Upon his return to Iqaluit in 2012, Pauloosie entered into the care of
his aunt, Rosie. Shortly after his return, both his mother and his
grandmother passed away. It was around this time that Pauloosie
attempted suicide. I am told that he tried to hang himself but was
saved by his brother, Luke.
[34] Rosie tried the best she could to raise the boy, but when Pauloosie
eventually returned to alcohol and drugs, his aunt could no longer
cope. Pauloosie was returned to Ranch Ehrlo.

[35] By mid-2014, Pauloosie was approaching legal adulthood. As a result,

he was returned to Iqaluit to live. Once again, he was placed in the
care of his aunt Rosie. While at Ranch Ehrlo, Pauloosie was unable to
complete much of Grade 10 and is therefore not highly employable.
[36] Nunavut Mental Health [Mental Health], a division of the Department
of Health, had put a plan into place to assist and follow-up with
Pauloosie upon his return from Ranch Ehrlo in 2014. It was clear from
the testimony that we heard in Court, that they essentially dropped
the ball in this regard. Pauloosie received no follow-up care upon his
final return from Ranch Ehrlo. Left essentially to fend for himself yet
again, Pauloosie inevitably fell in with a rather unsavory group of
friends - the proverbial wrong crowd.
(ii). The accuseds medical condition

[37] I had before me medical evidence that shows Pauloosie suffers from
FASD. This diagnosis is not disputed by the Crown.
[38] I was provided with two diagnostic reports from medical specialists in
the area of FAS & FASD. The first was prepared in 2010 by Dr. Logan
from the Regina Community Clinics FASD Centre, during the time
when Pauloosie was residing at Ranch Ehrlo. The second report was
prepared in September of 2015 by Dr. Handley, who is a highly
credentialed clinical psychologist who also has extensive forensic and
clinical experience with FAS & FASD patients. In addition to these
medical and psychological assessments, I was fortunate to hear the
testimony of Susan Beddam, Adult Services Specialist from the
Nunavut Department of Family Services [Family Services]. She is also
the Deputy Public Guardian.
[39] In a nutshell, the reports and Ms. Beddams testimony show the
following:
1. In terms of severity, Pauloosies condition particularly his cognitive
deficiency is towards the higher end of the scale;
2. His criminal behavior is directly linked to his condition and the
associated cognitive deficiency;

10

3. These negative behaviours and impulses can be managed with the

right therapeutic approach and with community follow-up support;
and
4. The risk of recidivism is low, as Pauloosie responds well to
intervention. The prognosis is therefore positive.
[40] When Pauloosie returned to Iqaluit from Ranch Ehrlo last year, he
once again fell in with the wrong crowd. According to Dr. Handley,
however, this is not unusual. It is fairly common for someone with
Pauloosies condition to hang out with whomever will have them. It is
also clear to me that, during this time, Pauloosie was not receiving
any of the professional community follow-up from Mental Health that
he was apparently supposed to receive under the plan of care upon
his return to this community.
[41] Ms. Beddam is familiar with Pauloosies case, and has extensive
experience dealing with FAS and FASD clients in her care. At present
she has over one hundred such clients. She is also well aware of the
previous failure of the Mental Health division to provide the
recommended community follow-up for Pauloosie. She is quite
confident that her Family Services division is both equipped and
willing to provide such follow-up upon Pauloosies discharge from the
southern treatment centre.
[42] Ms. Beddam has essentially assured me that what happened last
year with Mental Health dropping the ball will not happen again with
her Family Services team. Ms. Beddam has also assured me that her
team will provide sufficient and useful community support to
Pauloosie upon his return from the treatment centre in order to help
him stay on the straight and narrow when he eventually comes
home. I accept both of these assurances.
[43] As a final note in this regard, Ms. Beddam has informed the Court that
she is quite confident that Pauloosie will do very well at this agency
[the southern treatment centre under consideration].

11

[44] I have evidence that Pauloosies condition affects his cognitive

functioning. The evidence shows that, like Pauloosie, people with FAS
and FASD have great difficulty controlling impulsive behavior, such as
the impulse to act in various, often anti-social and/or criminal ways.
These individuals also have difficulty appreciating the consequences
that their actions may have for others or themselves. The materials
before me also show that persons with FASD are prone to
hyperactivity and have difficulty with so-called executive functioning,
or problem solving.
[45] These tendencies do not mean that people suffering from FAS and/or
FASD do not understand or know what they are doing. Indeed, they
quite often do. Defence Counsel readily concedes that Pauloosie
knew what he was doing when he committed these offences. This is
particularly true for the robbery at the retail store, when he attempted
to disguise himself. Nonetheless, it is clear from the materials filed
that these two aspects of cognitive impairment the difficulty in
controlling impulsive behavior and the difficulty in appreciating the
consequences of such behavior are often predominant hallmarks of
FASD.
[46] I pause to note that none of this is in dispute. In characteristic
fairness, the Crown takes issue with neither my conclusions
respecting Pauloosies medical condition, nor the conclusion that he
was unable to deal with the impulse to rob the retail store due to this
condition. Indeed, as Dr. Handley bluntly worded it in his report: the
answer to the question, Is [Pauloosies] current behavior the result of
his background and the diagnosis of FAS?is Yes.

12

[47] FASD is a lifelong condition. The materials filed and the testimony
heard has made it clear, however, that with treatment, therapy,
community follow-up and the patients willingness to co-operate, the
negative behaviors associated with the disorder can be managed. In
Pauloosies case, it appears that the prospect for such management
is good. Dr. Handley noted that Pauloosie was both pleasant and cooperative throughout an obviously rigorous assessment process. In
concluding his report, Dr. Handley noted the following:
On a positive note, although Pauloosie is intellectually compromised
and lacks insight and self-control, the prognosis is encouraging if he
works with a caring and sensitive therapist and lives in a structured
setting. The progress will be slow but Pauloosie has the intellectual
capability and his is the type of personality that will assist in learning
pro-social attitudes and behaviors.

III.

Submissions

A.

Defence

[48] The Defence position is that the threshold criteria for the imposition of
a lengthy residential placement in a treatment centre, in lieu of a long
prison term, has been met in this case. The Court should therefore
seize upon this rare opportunity to actually sentence his client in an
effective manner.
[49] The Defence bluntly and, I think, accurately states that Pauloosie is
just one of many more like him. Young men, appearing before the
Court for committing crimes while suffering from FAS or FASD, who
represent - in Defence Counsels words - the new face of Nunavut.
B. Crown
[50] The Crown has taken what I consider to be both a fair and firm
position.

13

[51] Initially, the Crown made submission for a global sentence of 2 and
years of federal imprisonment. The Crown informed me that it arrived
at this position after a careful consideration of both the seriousness of
the offence and the personal circumstances of the accused. The
Crown has therefore considered the paramount sentencing objectives
of deterrence and denunciation, as well as Pauloosies youth, his
absence of a criminal record, and his medical condition. As regards
the seriousness of the offense, Crown Counsel specifically noted the
increased frequency of robberies throughout Nunavut, particularly in
Iqaluit, as of late. He described this phenomenon poignantly and
accurately as a terrifying coming of age in Iqaluit.
[52] The Crown made the point that the citizens of Iqaluit are frightened by
these types of robberies; bluntly stating that the sentences imposed
for crimes such as this must be measured in years. Counsels
argument for this position was that, at the end of the day, in terms of
the paramount goal of public safety, the public just wants to feel safe.
[53] After conducting a thorough and skillful cross-examination of Ms.
Beddam, however, Crown Counsel modified his position. Counsel
suggested that, if the Court were considering a treatment centre
placement, a jail sentence of 18 months would be the appropriate
stretch of time for Pauloosie to serve prior to any such placement.
This sentence falls in the middle-to-high territorial range.
[54] Crown Counsel was aware of the Courts shrinking window of
opportunity to make a treatment centre placement. Despite this,
Counsel suggested that if the Court was inclined to make the
treatment center placement, the key would be to get the balance right
with the amount of time that Pauloosie should serve prior to any such
placement.
IV. ANALYSIS
[55] In terms of the fundamental principle of proportionality, the
punishment that Pauloosie receives must fit both the crimes and his
degree of responsibility in carrying them out. The Court must assess
the severity of the crime as well as its impact on the victims and the
community. The Court must also look at the question of Pauloosies
moral blameworthiness at the time he committed the crimes.

14

[56] Robbery, particularly armed robbery, is one of the most serious

crimes found in the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46
[Criminal Code]. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
[57] In the modern digital age, we hear about serious violent crime in large
urban centers around the world on an almost daily basis. Such news
does not really impact our daily lives. However, the people of Iqaluit
are shocked to hear of robberies and armed robberies occurring right
here at home. Such brazen criminality not only instills fear among our
citizenry, it allows for a residual atmosphere of insecurity to infect the
daily life of our small and intimate city.
[58] In particular, I am concerned about the fear experienced by the poor
store clerks, who are often just young kids, when confronted by these
types of situations situations in which a man, brandishing a knife or
wearing a mask, threatens them with harm and demands money.
Frankly, in situations like these, it does not matter if the robber is
unarmed. The store clerk will always be fearful of the mere possibility
of a concealed weapon.
[59] It is because of the severity of this type of crime, a type of crime that
has now taken root in our community, that the Court must give
paramount consideration and emphasis to the sentencing objectives
of deterrence (both general and specific) and denunciation when
passing sentence upon an offender.
[60] The Court must impose a sentence that will dissuade the offender
from committing this type of crime in the future, while sending a signal
to anyone else who contemplates such a crime that the penalty for its
commission will be severe.
[61] The Court must also impose a sentence which denounces the type of
crime committed. It must confirm the values of those law abiding
members of our community who are outraged by this type of crime
while signalling that it also takes this type of crime seriously. The best
way to send such a signal is, of course, by sentencing the offender to
a lengthy jail term.
[62] Pauloosies crimes, particularly the masked robbery at the retail store,
are crimes of the highest severity. At the same time, however, his
medical condition cannot be ignored in assessing what type of
sentence he should receive.

15

[63] It is clear that the level of Pauloosies moral blameworthiness as he

entered the store, put on the mask, and threatened the store clerk, is
less than that of a person who does the same thing, but does not
suffer from FASD. This is not to say, however, that FASD is an
excuse for committing the crime. It is not. Nor is this to say that
Pauloosie did not know or fully comprehend his actions at the time. It
is clear that he was aware of what he was doing. The point is that we
know, from the medical evidence presented in this case, that
Pauloosies ability to control the impulsive behaviour which led him to
commit this robbery is directly affected by his FASD condition.
[64] It is fairly well-settled law that imposing long jail sentences on people
with these conditions in the hopes that they will cease to behave in
such an anti-social and criminal fashion is most often a futile
proposition. Simply put, the sentencing objective of individual
deterrence cannot be satisfied in most such cases. Offenders
suffering from FASD, unlike those who are not, will likely remain
undeterred by the prospect of time in jail.
[65] Nonetheless, since public safety is paramount, the Court is left with
little alternative, but the imposition of a prison term. Often, depending
upon the severity of the offence, a federal penitentiary term will be
imposed.
[66] The only alternative to prison for those offenders who commit serious
crimes, but who suffer from FAS or FASD, is a long-term placement in
a secure and well-established residential treatment centre.
[67] It is only in such a setting that any hope to reduce the chance of
recidivism may take seed. As important, if not more so, is the sense of
safety and security that placement in such a setting will afford the
public, knowing that the offender has been taken away and isolated
from society for a significant period of time.
[68] In Nunavut, of course, there exists no such residential treatment
centre. Indeed, the frequency of FASD, as with the frequency of other
afflictions involving drugs and alcohol, is matched only by the paucity
of services available within the territory for those affected.

16

[69] In the case R v Joamie, 2013 NUCJ 19, 2013 CarswellNun 23

[Joamie], the Senior Judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice set out a
clear set of threshold criteria which must be satisfied before a
residential treatment placement can be made in lieu of a jail term in
cases involving FAS or FASD.
[70] The Joamie criteria make it clear that Defence Counsel seeking a
residential placement for their client must provide the Court with a
solid medical and forensic evidential base to support their application.
[71] In this regard, the Court will need to consider, and have before it, the
following:
1.

A medical diagnosis of the offenders FAS condition from a

specialist in that field;

2.

A forensic psychological assessment, identifying both the

nature and severity of the offenders cognitive defect(s) as a
result of his FAS or FASD condition, as well as the relation
between the cognitive defect and his criminal behavior;

3.

The specifics of any treatment plan, including particulars as

to how the plan addresses the risk of recidivism; and

4.

Information as to whether the residential treatment centre

has the specialized resources necessary to help the
offender manage and control his behavioral impulses.

[72] The Court will also need to be satisfied that there are sufficient
specialized resources or support mechanisms in place to help the
offender when he is released from the facility and returned to his
community.
[73] Given the herculean task of putting such information together, it is
obvious that applications for residential treatment dispositions will be
rarely granted.

17

[74] In this case before me, Defence Counsel has laboured diligently over
the past six months to put together a sentencing proposal on behalf of
his client that satisfies the threshold evidential framework required by
Joamie. In my view, counsel has passed the test. Both the materials
before me and the testimony I have heard clearly meet the Joamie
standard.
V. CONCLUSION
[75] ] Having thus assessed the substance of the materials and the
testimony, I feel both confident and compelled in this, the rarest of
cases, to impose the sentence urged by Defence Counsel. I therefore
require that Pauloosie, in addition to the 278 days he has already
spent on remand in pre-trial custody, spend the next three years in a
secure residential treatment centre.
[76] Finally, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the effort, patience,
and acumen of both Crown and Defence Counsel during this difficult
case, which has finally come to a close after a stressful two week
period.

Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 12th day of November, 2015

___________________
Justice N. Sharkey
Nunavut Court of Justice