HKSAR v. KWAN TSZ LAM AND ANOTHER

CACC 59/2023

[2024] HKCA 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 59 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 353 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  The 1^st applicant (D1 at trial)  and the 2^nd applicant (D2 at trial)  were jointly indicted with one count of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug together with Tse Kuk Wun (Tse)  (Count 1). D1 was further indicted with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (Count 2). On 1 February 2023, D1 and D2 pleaded not guilty to their respective counts and proceeded to trial before Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (the Judge)  and a jury. On 28 February 2023, the jury unanimously convicted D1 and D2 on Count 1 and D1 of Count 2. On 1 March 2023, D1 was sentenced to 25 years and 1 month’s imprisonment, and D2 was sentenced to 24 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.

2.  On 21 March 2023, D1 applied for leave to appeal against conviction.  D1 appears in person, having had legal aid refused on 7 June 2023, 10 November 2023 and 8 April 2024.

3.  On 22 March 2023, D2 applied for leave to appeal against conviction.  D2 appears in person, having had legal aid refused on 7 June 2023.

The prosecution’s case

4.  The prosecution called eight witnesses at trial, including Tse, an accomplice witness, who had pleaded guilty to Count 1.[1]  A voir dire had been conducted prior to the trial, and the post-recorded statements and video recorded interviews of D1 and D2 were ruled admissible.

Count 1

5.  At the end of June 2019, Tse answered a Facebook advertisement for earning quick money and was contacted by a man called “Carson”, who had asked him to collect some goods from overseas that would contain drugs.[2]

6.  On 2 July 2019, Carson explained to Tse that he urgently needed someone to collect the drugs, and Tse agreed to collect around 3 kilogrammes of drugs in return for a reward of $6,000 per kilogramme.  On the same day, Carson told Tse to go to a business centre in Hollywood Plaza, Mongkok to open an account for collecting the goods and said that someone who also knew that they were dealing with drugs would contact him.  A few minutes later, D2 called him, asking him to take a taxi to Hollywood Plaza immediately because they had to open an account.  Upon query by Tse, D2 said that he knew what the dangerous drug was but that Tse had to ask Carson if he wanted details.[3]

7.  Later that day, D2 met up with Tse at Hollywood Plaza, and they took the lift together to the 18^th floor.  In the lift, D2 gave Tse $800 cash to open the account and asked him to take a screenshot of his mobile telephone which showed the email address that he was supposed to use to open the account.  Tse then entered the business centre to open the account.  D2 did not go in and stayed on the 18^th floor.  They met again in the lift lobby of the 18^th floor and took the same lift to go back down, during which D2 asked Tse for the account opening documents.  D2 read the documents and kept them.[4]

8.  On 9 July 2024, the business centre sent an email to the address given by Tse to notify him that a parcel containing a water dispenser had arrived.[5] At around 4:00 pm that day, D2 called Tse, telling him to collect the goods and take a taxi to Kwai Chung afterwards, where he should wait at a cafe near the Jockey Club Centre.[6]

9.  Tse later met up with D2 at Hollywood Plaza, and they took the lift together.  Tse got out on the 18^th floor, but D2 did not.  Tse then collected the carton box and later left it in a taxi.[7]  The box had come from Malaysia and was addressed to Tse.[8] As captured by CCTV footage, after the box had been collected, D2 appeared on the 18^th floor and walked around while talking on the telephone, after which he left the building.  D1 then  appeared on the ground floor and left in the same direction as D2.[9]

10.  In the taxi, Tse received two telephone calls from D2, who told him that the destination had changed to the McDonald’s restaurant at Belvedere Square, Tsuen Wan.  When Tse sat down at McDonald’s, he saw D1 and D2 arrive.  D1 approached him and took the carton box while D2 remained 20 metres away.  D1 then walked back to D2 and they left together.[10]

11.  At around 6:47 pm that day, D1 and D2 hailed a taxi outside Belvedere Square.  D1 placed the carton box into the boot of the taxi and got on the passenger seat.  Police officers then approached the taxi. D1and D2 fled but were intercepted shortly after.[11]

12.  The carton box was found to contain a water dispenser with a metal box concealed therein.[12] The metal box contained 10 blocks containing a total of 3,508 grammes of a mixture containing 3,012 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.[13]  At the time of the offence, the heroin had a street value of $3,890,372.[14]

13.  D1 was arrested and admitted under caution that he had merely received $40,000 to collect the dangerous drugs and that he was only responsible for receiving the goods.[15] He also stated under caution  the following:

(i)  a male had called him that day telling him to receive the batch of goods from Belvedere Garden in return for $40,000;[16] and

(ii)  he lived at Room F, 19^th Floor, Tower 1, Primrose Hill, Tai Wo Hau, where he had a small amount of dangerous drugs at his home for his own consumption.[17] 

14.  D1 subsequently confirmed his caution statement in a post record. [18]

15.  D2 was arrested and admitted under caution that he had only helped someone watch a postal packet for $500.[19]

Count 2

16.  At 8:20 pm on 9 July 2019, police officers arrived at the flat with D1 and conducted a search.  Inside a cabinet in the living room, they found a black bag.  An examination of the black bag revealed five transparent resealable plastic bags with a total of 114.13 grammes of a mixture containing 94.38 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.[20]  A transparent resealable plastic bag containing phenacetin was found in another compartment of the cabinet.[21] A sealing machine and three electronic scales were also found inside the flat.[22]  At the time of the offence, the street value of the heroin was $126,570.[23]

17.  D1 was arrested and stated under caution that the small packets of dangerous drugs were for his own consumption and that the large bag was not dangerous drugs.[24]

18.  D1 had been renting the flat at a monthly rent of $13,000 since 12 June 2019.[25]

D1’s video recorded interviews

19.  On 10 July 2019, D1 participated in video recorded interviews, during which he admitted the following under caution:[26]

(i)  He had told his friends that he was in need of money.  He later received a telephone call from an unknown man who offered to pay him $40,000 to collect a parcel.[27] He was told that it was a dangerous drug;[28] 

(ii)  The person had also told D1 that D2, whom D1 had known for about a year, would go with him to collect it.[29]  D1 then contacted D2 over the telephone, and D2 said that D1 would collect the parcel when the time comes;[30]

(iii)  On 9 July 2019, D1 and D2 took a taxi from Tsuen Wan to Mongkok.[31] As there was a traffic jam, they got off in Mei Foo and took an MTR to Mongkok.[32]  D2 received a telephone call and went upstairs to Hollywood Plaza.  D2 returned and  said that he was ready to go;[33]

(iv)  D1 then received a telephone call asking him to go to McDonald’s in Belvedere Garden and to look for a bald man, from whom to collect a parcel.  He had intended to take the parcel home first after getting it.  He then took a taxi to Belvedere Garden with D2;[34]

(v)  Upon arrival, D1 picked up the parcel from a bald man at McDonalds.  D2 was nearby in the shopping mall and was about 10 to 20 metres away from D1.  After collecting the parcel, D1 asked D2 to flag down a taxi for him;[35]

(vi)  D1 then put the goods inside the boot of the taxi and they got into the taxi.  D1 told the driver to head to Primrose Hill.[36] A group of persons, later known to be police officers, then opened the vehicle door, and Dl instinctively ran;[37] and

(vii)   He had rented the flat about a month before this offence and lived alone.  No one else had the passcode to the flat.[38]  The five small  packets of heroin inside the cabinet were for his own consumption.  He had purchased them from a friend in June 2019[39] and had placed them inside the cabinet in the living room[40].

D2’s video recorded interview

20.  A video recorded interview was conducted with D2 on 10 July 2019, during which he stated the following under caution:[41]

(i)  At around 4:30 pm on 9 July 2019, someone named “Ah Chiu”, whom he had met once a few months ago, called him asking him to go to Hollywood Plaza at around 5 pm to watch someone pick up a postal packet and then keep an eye on him in Tsuen Wan.  D2 would receive a reward of around $500 to $1,000;[42]

(ii)  He met up with a bald man (Tse)  in Hollywood Plaza, and they took the same lift to 18^th floor.  Tse went inside the office while D2 kept watch at the lift entrance.  Tse came out with something heavy, which resembled a fridge or a washing machine.  Tse then left, and D2 received a call from Ah Chiu telling him to go to Tsuen Wan to keep watch on Tse.  D2 was also told that he could leave after he saw Tse passing the parcel to another person;[43]

(iii)  D2 took a taxi to Belvedere Garden and looked for Tse at McDonald’s.  He was standing somewhere far away and saw D1 approaching Tse and taking the parcel from him.  He had met D1 about 2-3 months ago but did not know that he would show up;[44]

(iv)  He then bumped into D1 accidentally when D1 was walking over with the parcel.  They had a chat, and D1 asked him to hail a taxi for him.  D2 was intending to leave at the time and had not intended to get on the taxi;[45]

(v)  He had first met Tse in late June 2019. Ah Chiu had asked him to watch Tse prepare some paperwork on the 18^th the floor of Hollywood Plaza[46] and no reward was received[47];

(vi)  He did not know what was inside the parcel, but Ah Chiu told him that it was a washing machine;[48]

(vii)   When he was approached by the police officers, he thought an unknown gang was coming to rob him so he ran away;[49] and

(viii)  He had actually run into D1 by coincidence at Hollywood Plaza.  They then took a taxi to Tsuen Wan together because D1 was going the same way.  They went their separate ways after getting off at Belvedere Garden, and D2 looked for Tse.  He then saw D1 showing up and taking the parcel from Tse.[50]

D1’s case

21.  D1 elected to testify but called no witnesses.[51]  His case was that he did not know about the drugs inside the parcel or the drugs seized from the flat.

22.  In his testimony, D1 gave evidence that he had agreed to help his flatmate Peter collect a piece of furniture on 9 July 2019 as he was too busy.  Peter had asked D2 to assist D1 as he might not be able to carry the box himself.  Peter had given D2 details of the collection location and seller and asked D1 to contact D2 to make arrangements.  D1 met up with D2 in Tsuen Wan, and they took a taxi followed by the MTR to Mongkok to meet the seller.[52]   

23.  When they arrived at Hollywood Plaza, D2 asked D1 to wait because he had something to do there.  D2 returned 15-20 minutes later, and they got on another taxi to Tsuen Wan, where D2 said that the seller was now in Tsuen Wan.  During the taxi ride, D2 told D1 what the seller looked like so he could identify him.  When they arrived at Belvedere Square, D2 asked D1 to go to McDonald’s and get the parcel while D2 went to find a taxi.  D1 then picked up the carton box from Tse and met D2 outside Belvedere Square.  When they got into the taxi after placing the box in the boot, a group of people rushed out, and he ran as he did not know what was going on.[53]

24.  In relation to Count 2, D1 claimed that he was going to move into the Flat with a friend named Peter, who was paying the deposit and a larger share of the rent.  Peter had already moved in, but D1 had not, as it was not ready for occupation.  He claimed he did not know to whom the drugs in the Flat belonged or when they had been put inside the cabinet.[54] 

25.  D1 also claimed that he had not made the confessions after his arrest and that the police had coached him as to what to say in his video recorded interviews.  He claimed that he had been assaulted, threatened and induced by the police officers into cooperating.[55] 

D2’s case

26.  D2 elected to testify but called no witnesses.[56]  His case was that he had not agreed to go anywhere with D1 to collect the parcel and had no knowledge that it contained dangerous drugs.

27.  D2 gave evidence that he had recently met a man named “Ah Chiu” or “Pete” who had promised to introduce him some work in the decoration field as he was unemployed.  On 2 July 2019, Pete asked him to go to a business centre with Tse to open an account at a business centre as Tse might need help filling in the application forms.  D2 agreed and met up with Tse at Hollywood Plaza.  He gave Tse $800 on behalf of Pete and an email address given by Pete.  Tse then told him he did not need his help and asked him to wait outside.  They met up again at the lift lobby and left together.[57] 

28.  On 9 July 2019, Pete asked D2 to go with Tse to the same business centre to collect some furniture as he was too busy.  When D2 met Tse at Hollywood Plaza, Tse said that the parcel was not big and that he did not need D2’s help.  While Tse got out on the 18^th floor, he got out on the 19^th floor because he had made a mistake and did not see Tse get out on the 18^th floor.  After D2 had waited for about 10 minutes at the rear staircase, Tse told him over the telephone that he had left.  The original plan was that D2 and Tse would take the parcel to meet Pete in Kwai Chung.[58]

29.  When D2 got back to the ground floor, he bumped into D1 and had a chat with him.  They took a taxi to Kwai Chung together as they were going in the same direction.  Pete then called D2, asking him to go to Tsuen Wan instead and to pass the message to Tse to go to Tsuen Wan.  Despite the change of direction and destination, D1 went with D2 in the taxi.  They got off at Belvedere Garden and went their separate ways.[59] 

30.  When D2 went inside Belvedere Square, he saw that D1 had taken a parcel from Tse and was walking towards him.  He asked D1 if he knew Tse, but D1 said no and that he was collecting some furniture for a friend. D1 then asked him to help him hail a taxi.  D2 did not board the taxi as he was going to meet Pete.  Two men, later known to be police officers, then grabbed him, and he ran because he worried that it was a revenge attack.[60]   

31.  D2 claimed that he had never stated at arrest that he had been paid $500 to watch a parcel and that he did not know the contents of his post-recorded statement when he signed the notebook.  He also claimed that he had been assaulted, threatened, induced and tortured after his arrest and that the video recorded interview was not conducted voluntarily.[61]

D1’s leave application against conviction

32.  In the notice for leave to appeal, D1 did not provide any grounds of appeal, nor did he file any subsequent grounds.  At the leave hearing D1 said that he had only recently been informed by a legal service scheme that he had no grounds of appeal.  He said he had nothing to add and confirmed he had no basis for complaint against his conviction.

33.  As pointed out by Ms Angel Yuen, for the respondent, the Judge gave the relevant specimen directions on the law, in particular on the burden and standard of proof and the elements of the offence.  Moreover, she comprehensively set out the defence case for both D1 and D2.  She reminded the jury that if they believed their evidence was true or may be true, they were entitled to be acquitted.[62]  She emphasised that even if their evidence was rejected, the prosecution still had to prove the case against each of them beyond reasonable doubt.[63] 

34.  The jury, by its verdict, rejected D1’s evidence and found that he had the requisite knowledge in respect of each count he faced.  D1 had made full admissions under caution, which the jury must have accepted were made voluntarily by him and were true and reliable. 

35.  As for D1, he now accepts that he has no basis for complaint against his conviction, and his leave application is refused.

D2’s leave application against conviction

36.  In a letter filed on 17 June 2024, D2 advances 11 grounds of appeal (the original grounds), which supersede the previous 4 grounds of appeal included in his letter dated 6 August 2023.  Ms Yuen has very helpfully distilled the 11 original grounds into the following 8 grounds because of duplication, which I will adopt:

(i)  Ground 1 alleges that the Judge’s summing-up was unbalanced and unfair (original Grounds 1 and 2);

(ii)  Ground 2 contends that the Judge failed to remind the jury to consider each defendant’s case separately (original Grounds 1, 3 and 8);

(iii)  Ground 3 submits that the Judge misdirected the jury on the handling of the accomplice witness's evidence (original Grounds 2 and 8);

(iv)  Ground 4 argues that the Judge failed to give a flight direction (original Ground 5);

(v)  Ground 5 alleges that the transcript of D2’s video recorded interview included in the Appeal Bundle had been altered (original Ground 6);

(vi)  Ground 6 contends that the Judge failed to clearly explain the meaning of a conspiracy to the jury (original Ground 7);

(vii)   Ground 7 complains that there was no direct evidence to prove D2’s knowledge (original Grounds 9 and 11); and

(viii)  Ground 8 alleges that the trial counsel and solicitor were flagrantly incompetent (original Grounds 8 and 10).

37.  Ground 1: There is no basis to allege that the Judge’s summing-up was unfair and unbalanced.  Despite D2’s complaints, the Judge gave the correct specimen directions on burden and standard of proof and on a defendant giving evidence.  She also provided a comprehensive summary of the evidence and the case for each defendant.  After the jury retired for deliberations, they asked a question in respect of the offence of conspiracy. The Judge consulted both counsel, and after they discussed the matter, she gave a further explanation on the elements of the offence of conspiracy regarding the agreement to traffic in dangerous drugs.  She addressed the jury’s query by following the instructions set out in Specimen Direction 102 of the Specimen Directions in Jury Trials, 2020.[64] D2 claims that the Judge instructed the jury that the knowledge of one defendant would be the knowledge of another defendant.  This was not said by the Judge.  She made it abundantly clear to the jury that each defendant had to know what they were agreeing to[65] and that they were entering into an agreement to traffic in dangerous drugs.[66] 

38.  Ground 2: It is complained that the Judge did not direct the jury correctly on the conspiracy offence and failed to instruct the jury that they had to consider the cases of D1 and D2 separately.  First, the Judge correctly directed the jury on the conspiracy offence, particularly on the element of “the agreement”, and followed the relevant specimen direction. In addition to her oral instructions, she provided the jury with a written handout in respect of the elements of the conspiracy offence, setting out the case against each defendant and what had to be proved.  Secondly, the Judge also reminded the jury that the case against each defendant had to be considered separately.[67] She made it abundantly clear to the jury that they could convict either D1 or D2 and that they had to be sure that each defendant had entered into the agreement to traffic in dangerous drugs.[68]  Thirdly, D2 complains that the Judge did not distinguish what D1 said in his video recorded interviews regarding D2 and that it could not be used as evidence against him.  As rightly pointed out by Ms Yuen, the converse is true, the Judge did give such an instruction.[69] 

39.  Ground 3: It is complained that the Judge failed to direct the jury that Tse’s evidence was hearsay.  There was no breach of the hearsay rule.  The prosecution only relied on D2’s direct admissions to Tse.[70]  The Judge carefully instructed the jury on the approach they should take in considering the evidence of an accomplice witness and correctly identified the evidence that they could rely upon in respect of D2.

40.  Ground 4: It is complained that the Judge failed to give a flight direction, but none was required because the prosecution attached no significance to this aspect of the evidence.[71]  It was not in dispute, as it was an admitted fact, that D2 had been chased by the police and intercepted.[72]

41.  Ground 5: It is complained by D2 that the transcript of his video recorded interview in the Appeal Bundle contained untrue answers.  He said the transcript given to him by legal aid was different. This allegation is completely unfounded.  The Appeal Bundle contained an accurate transcription of D2’s answers in his video recorded interview, and there was no dispute as to its accuracy at trial.

42.  Ground 6: It is complained that the Judge failed to properly explain the meaning of “a conspiracy” and may have misled the jury on the element of “an agreement” to prove the conspiracy offence.  The Judge correctly directed the jury on the subject of a conspiracy, following Specimen Direction 102.  The jury would have been in no doubt that to find D2 guilty of the conspiracy offence that he must be a party to an agreement to traffic in dangerous drugs.[73]

43.  Ground 7: It is claimed that prosecuting counsel had raised hypothetical questions in his closing address, which were unsupported by the evidence.  D2 complains that there was no direct evidence to prove that he knew the parcel contained drugs, and it was unfair for the Judge to direct the jury that they could use circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt.  The prosecution were fully entitled to rely on the circumstantial evidence to prove knowledge, but in any event, there was direct evidence from Tse, if accepted by the jury, that he knew he was dealing in dangerous drugs. Moreover, the Judge gave a full direction in relation to circumstantial evidence and inferential reasoning.[74]

44.  Ground 8: It is alleged that his legal representatives at trial were flagrantly incompetent.  There is no substance whatsoever in this allegation, nor in the specific complaints that have been made against the trial counsel and legal clerk. 

45.  First, D2 alleged that his legal representatives only held one conference with him, but as revealed by the trial counsel and legal clerk, this allegation is untrue.  They conducted a total of 13 conferences with him where instructions were taken from him and detailed proofs of evidence were prepared.  He complained about the lack of conferences after a change of the legal clerk and was not informed that he could view the CCTV footage before giving evidence.  However, he confirmed that he did not request to see the CCTV footage, even though his legal representatives discussed the prosecution evidence with him.

46.  Secondly, D2 complains that the CCTV footage should not have been admitted, and was contrary to the defence case presented at trial.  As noted by Ms Yuen, there is nothing to suggest that the admission of the CCTV footage caused D2 any unfairness, and no basis for an application to discharge the jury as suggested by D2.  D2’s defence at trial was that he was innocently involved with Tse to collect some furniture, and after Tse had collected the parcel, he bumped into D1 by chance, who then took the parcel from Tse. 

47.  Thirdly, D2 complains that his legal representatives did not furnish him with grounds of appeal as they promised.  The legal representatives denied making such promise, but, in any event, this matter has no bearing on whether he had received a fair trial. 

48.  Fourthly, D2 complains that his counsel did not cross-examine Tse in respect of inconsistencies between his evidence in court and previous statements in his video recorded interviews.  This complaint was not included in D2’s affirmation and so no response has been provided by his legal representatives.  However, it is plainly apparent from counsel’s closing address to the jury that issue was taken with Tse’s evidence. 

49.  Fifthly, D2 complains that his legal representatives did not inform him that he could have made an application for the trial to be conducted in Punti.  This complaint did not feature in D2’s affirmation, and accordingly, his legal representatives have not provided a response to it. However, an interpreter was provided to D2 and there is nothing to suggest that he had any difficulty in understanding or participating in the proceedings. 

50.  This ground of appeal is completely devoid of merit.

Conclusion

51.  For the reasons I have given, I do not find any basis to grant leave to D1 to appeal against his conviction.  I do not find the grounds of appeal advanced by D2 to be reasonably arguable and leave is refused to appeal his conviction.

52.  D1 and D2 are each reminded of their right to renew their application for leave to appeal against conviction to the Court of Appeal, but they are also informed of the consequences of doing so, which may include a direction for any loss of time spent in custody pending their appeal, if the Court were of the view that there was no justification for the renewal of their application.  D2 is specifically reminded that an unwarranted assertion of incompetence against legal representatives will normally attract an order for loss of time.

53.  It remains for me to thank Ms Yuen for her comprehensive and helpful submissions.

[1]   Appeal Bundle (AB), 16K-19J and 48E-66U.

[2]   AB, 48E-J.

[3]   AB, 48K-49H.

[4]   AB, 49H-50D.

[5]   AB, 53G-N.

[6]   AB, 50D-I.

[7]   AB, 7, at [1].

[8]   AB, 53O-R.  

[9]   AB, 50I-T.

[10]   AB, 51A-I; 8, at [4].

[11]   AB, 8-9, at [5]-[7].

[12]   AB, 9, at [9]. 

[13]   AB, 10-11, at [16]-[23]. 

[14]   AB, 14, at [37].

[15]   AB, 55J-M; 102. 

[16]   AB, 103.

[17]   AB, 103.

[18]   AB, 55R-56A.

[19]   AB, 62D-G; 280.

[20]   AB, 12-13, at [26]-[27], [35]. 

[21]   AB, 12-13, at [28] and [34].

[22]   AB, 56M-O.

[23]   AB, 14, at [37].

[24]   AB, 105-106.

[25]   AB, 11, at [25].

[26]   AB, 166-212; 239-259.

[27]   AB, 171-173 at [43]-[67]. 

[28]   AB, 174, at [73].

[29]   AB, 176-177, at [107]-[119].

[30]   AB, 178-179, at [126]-[145].

[31]   AB, 183, at [181]-[187]. 

[32]   AB, 185 at [213]-[217]. 

[33]   AB, 186-187, at [220]-[243].

[34]   AB, 188-190, at [251]-[279].

[35]   AB, 191-196, at [291]-[353].

[36]   AB, 197-198, at [361]-[381].

[37]   AB, 209, at [515].

[38]   AB, 244-245, at [37]-[61]. 

[39]   AB, 246-249, at [63]-[118].

[40]   AB, 254, at [186].

[41]   AB, 411-505.

[42]   AB, 415-427, at [52]-[267].

[43]   AB, 431-438, at [324]-[440].

[44]   AB, 438-444, at [437]-[560].

[45]   AB, 445-447, at [568]-[595].

[46]   AB, 447-451, at [604]-[665].

[47]   AB, 473, at [1041].

[48]   AB, 451-453, at [669]-[694]; 466-467, at [918]-[950].

[49]   AB, 455, at [724]; 489-497, at [1305]-[1435].

[50]   AB, 477-488, at [1109]-[1288].

[51]   AB, 19K-20I; 67T-73E.

[52]   AB, 68E-O.

[53]   AB, 68P-69I.

[54]   AB, 69I-N.

[55]   AB, 69O-71F.

[56]   AB, 20I-21O; 73E-80M.

[57]   AB, 73N-74K.

[58]   AB, 74N-75J.

[59]   AB, 75K-Q.

[60]   AB, 75R-76F.

[61]   AB, 76G-78M.

[62]   AB, 67A-J. 

[63]   AB, 27A-F and 67K-S. 

[64]   AB, 40E-42N.

[65]   AB, 560C-I.

[66]   AB, 40K-P, 41M-Q and 80R-U.

[67]   AB, 22G-M and 67D-G. 

[68]   AB, 40K-P, 41M-Q, 42E-K, and 80R-81C. 

[69]   AB, 34J-R. 

[70]   AB, 521I-K and 522H-M. 

[71]   AB, 520-534. 

[72]   AB, 9, at [7].

[73]   AB, 40E-42N and 559L-560N.

[74]   AB, 43H-45F.