Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Crim J(P) 1156/15 Date: 2016-06-29 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen – and – Sheldon Ranglin, Defendant

Counsel: B. McGuire and E. Taylor, for the Crown M. Moon and A. Pyper, for the Defendant

Heard: June 10, 2016

Ruling on Crown S. 9 (2) Canada Evidence Act Application

Ricchetti J.:

[1] On June 10, 2016, this court granted the Crown’s s. 9 (2) application under the Canada Evidence Act (CEA) for leave to cross-examine Mr. Moy-Lingomba on certain portions of his audio recorded statement to Mr. Darren Watts on June 21, 2012 with reasons to follow.

[2] These are those reasons.

The Charge

[3] Mr. Ranglin is charged with the first degree murder of Keith Brissett Jr. on June 7, 2011.

Background to the Crown Application

[4] The jury was selected on May 18, 19 and 20, 2016.

[5] The jury was put in charge on May 30, 2016 and the Crown started to call witnesses.

[6] On the morning of June 10, 2016, the Crown called Mr. Moy-Lingomba as a witness.

[7] On June 21, 2012, Mr. Darren Watts had worn a recording device while in a courthouse cell. Mr. Moy-Lingomba was placed in the same cell. A Consent Authorization had previously been obtained. There is an audio of that encounter (“Watts Audio”).

[8] During the preliminary hearing in 2015, Mr. Moy-Lingomba refused to be sworn or affirmed and did not give evidence. He was charged with obstructing justice.

[9] At this trial, Mr. Moy-Lingomba swore an oath. However, it was apparent from Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s demeanor and answers that he continued to be a reluctant witness for the Crown against Mr. Ranglin and sought to recant what he had said to Mr. Watts on June 21, 2012.

Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s Evidence in Chief

[10] Mr. Moy-Lingomba testified as follows in his examination in chief:

• He is currently in custody serving a sentence for firearm charges;
• In 2012, Mr. Moy-Lingomba, along with Mr. Borden, was charged with Mr. Brissett’s murder. Eventually, all charges relating to the Brissett murder against Mr. Moy-Lingomba have been stayed or withdrawn;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba has made no statement to the police regarding the Brissett murder;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba has known Mr. Borden since 2001-2002. Mr. Moy-Lingomba called him “Anthony” but later admitted that Mr. Borden was also known as “Tone”;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba knows Mr. Ranglin but he didn’t know him that well and didn’t know him by a nickname;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba had never met Mr. Brissett before;
• When asked about “Juice or Skyjuice”, Mr. Moy-Lingomba testified the nickname sounded familiar and he had heard it around but didn’t know who it was;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba admitted he was in the Rexwood apartment building when Mr. Brissett was murdered. He was near the basketball court at the rear of the apartment building;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba testified that, earlier that night, he had dropped Mr. Borden off at Westwood Mall to pick up a silver car which Mr. Borden drove to the Rexwood apartment. Mr. Moy-Lingomba testified he drove a white rental Mazda which was rented through Mr. Borden. Mr. Moy-Lingomba said he drove to the Rexwood apartment by himself and parked around the corner from the apartment building;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba couldn’t remember why he went to the Rexwood apartments that night. When Mr. Moy-Lingomba arrived, he ran into some persons he knew at the basketball court;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba didn’t see Mr. Borden arrive. He spoke to Mr. Borden briefly in the area, they “gave a handshake” and he couldn’t remember any other interaction(s) with Mr. Borden;
• When asked what he saw or heard regarding the shooting, Mr. Moy-Lingomba testified that he heard a couple of shots, he dropped, he hopped the fence of the townhomes, got into his car and drove off;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba testified that after the shots, he “slightly” saw a vehicle crash into another car;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba didn’t see who was the shooter;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba repeated that he didn’t know Juice and didn’t speak to Juice about the shooting at Rexwood apartments; and
• The only time he has spoken of “Juice” was when he spoke to Mr. Darren Watts in the courthouse cells when he was high on “molly” and crystal meth.

[11] The last part of Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s testimony was clearly an attempt to pre-empt or explain away the statements that Mr. Moy-Lingomba made to Mr. Watts which were recorded in the Watts Audio.

[12] After the jury retired, the Crown brought an application under s. 9 (2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross examine Mr. Moy-Lingomba on certain portions of his prior inconsistent statements.

The Crown S. 9 (2) Application

Was A Statement Made?

[13] The Defence conceded that Mr. Moy-Lingomba had made a prior statement.

Is There a Material Inconsistency?

[14] The Defence submitted there was no inconsistency in Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s prior statements to Mr. Watts and his evidence at this trial.

[15] The Crown conceded this lack of inconsistency on one point. The Crown agreed during submissions that Mr. Moy-Lingomba admitted Mr. Borden was Tone. As a result, the Crown agreed not to pursue those areas in the conversation between Mr. Moy-Lingomba and Mr. Watts where the sole inconsistency was Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s referral to “Tone”.

[16] The Crown submitted that there were material inconsistencies both on what Mr. Moy-Lingomba had said and his denial he could recall the conversation with Mr. Watts.

[17] A copy of the conversation between Mr. Moy-Lingomba and Mr. Watts as recorded in the Watts Audio was played in court. The audio is of very poor quality. There are many areas where this court cannot make out what was said.

[18] A copy of the transcript of the Watts Audio had been prepared and was available to Defence and to this court during the playing of the Watts Audio (“Transcript”). It too referred to certain inaudible portions of the conversation.

[19] The Defence disputed the accuracy and completeness of the Transcript. The Crown conceded it would not make the Transcript available to the jury or provide the Transcript to Mr. Moy-Lingomba as the Transcript might be suggestive of certain statements otherwise inaudible.

[20] While difficult to make out, during the course of conversation between Mr. Moy-Lingomba and Mr. Watts as recorded by the Watts Audio, it was clear that Mr. Moy-Lingomba had made statements such as the following (not necessarily verbatim):

a) Mr. Moy-Lingomba repeatedly referred to Juice, showing he had an extensive relationship with Juice and knew who Juice was; b) Mr. Moy-Lingomba said Mr. Borden gave him the keys to Mr. Borden’s car and Mr. Moy-Lingomba “just kept moving”; c) Mr. Moy-Lingomba said “I see the .....go like this, bop, bop, bop, ..... Juice, Juice, ...I’m like this nigga’s sick....”; d) Mr. Moy-Lingomba said “There’s me, Juice, Tone, Scarface, Money, you dawg, we’re all out there busting it up.... Everybody around me sells dope, we bust guns and we move bricks..”; and e) Mr. Moy-Lingomba said “You know, you know how long Juice has been looking for that guy. Juice has been looking for that guy since like 06, 07 dawg. That was the first time Juice seen him in the - I don’t know how long. Juice is like you, homey, we gotta get any way, that guy’s getting it. He’s like yo, bro, if I see that nigga in front of them, wind them, he’s getting it. If anywhere is this guy on demand, know what I’m saying?” “It was just a coincidence that he was there, and it was a coincidence that me and Tone at Rexwood that day”.

[21] The Crown submits that, contrary to Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s testimony in court, it is clear from his prior statements to Mr. Watts that Mr. Moy-Lingomba:

• knows Juice, who Juice is and has a relationship with Juice;
• was given the car keys by Mr. Borden at the Rexwood apartments just prior to the shooting; and
• had spoken to Juice about the motive for the shooting and that it was a coincidence that he and Mr. Borden were at the Rexwood apartments that night.

[22] The Defence agreed that Mr. Moy-Lingomba statement about being given the car keys by Mr. Borden, was an inconsistency with Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s evidence at trial and could be the subject matter of cross-examination.

[23] The Defence submitted that the Crown chose not to pursue the other areas of alleged inconsistency in their examination in chief and, as such, the inconsistency was not “properly set up” or established. I disagree. Mr. Moy-Lingomba clearly and unequivocally denied knowing who Juice was or speaking to Juice about the shooting. Going further would have been venturing into the area of cross-examining the Crown’s own witness as to who Juice was or questioning him on what Juice told him regarding the motive for the shooting. Cross-examination by counsel of a witness called by that counsel is not permitted without leave.

[24] The Defence also submits that the inconsistencies are inferential. They are to the extent Mr. Moy-Lingomba knew Juice. Mr. Moy-Lingomba doesn’t specifically make a statement to Mr. Watts that he knows or knew Juice. However, Mr. Moy-Lingomba refers to Juice numerous times, what they did together and what they had discussed. The only reasonable inference from such statements by Mr. Moy-Lingomba is that he knows Juice well, has a relationship with him, apparently discussed the motive for the shooting and had given materially inconsistent evidence at trial about knowing Juice or having spoken to Juice at all regarding the shooting.

[25] The fact that Mr. Moy-Lingomba tried to pre-empt the statements he made to Mr. Watts by stating he was "high" that day is also some evidence he considers his prior statements to Mr. Watts to be inconsistent. He was clearly trying to avoid having to deal with his prior statements to Mr. Watts from which he wanted to distance himself.

[26] I have no difficulty concluding there are material inconsistencies with Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s testimony at trial and the prior statements Mr. Moy-Lingomba made to Mr. Watts as recorded in the Watts Audio.

[27] I advised counsel of my ruling on this part of the R. v. Milgaard (1971), 2 C.C.C. (2d) 206 (Sask. C.A.) procedure and proceeded to consider whether leave would be granted to cross-examine Mr. Moy-Lingomba on the inconsistent statements.

The Circumstances of the Making of the Inconsistent Statements

[28] Upon being told of the finding there was a “material inconsistency” between the prior statements and Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s evidence at trial, the Defence advised that it intended to call “extensive” evidence regarding the circumstances of the making of the statements by Mr. Moy-Lingomba.

[29] The Defence advised it wished to cross-examine on the limitations in the Consent Authorization, cross-examine the police officers who had previously interviewed Mr. Moy-Lingomba immediately before he was placed in the cells with Mr. Watts, to cross-examine Mr. Watts and to cross-examine Mr. Moy-Lingomba.

[30] When pressed on what evidence the Defence expected to elicit regarding the circumstances of the making of Mr. Moy-Lingomba's statements to Mr. Watts that would assist the court in the exercise in its discretion to permit cross examination on the material inconsistencies, nothing specific was forthcoming from the Defence. An early lunch break was announced to provide the Defence with an opportunity to produce an application that could identify what the Defence hoped to elicit by calling this “extensive” evidence that would be relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion.

[31] Upon resuming after lunch, the Crown conceded that Mr. Moy-Lingomba could be cross-examined in the voir dire as to the circumstances of the making of his prior inconsistent statements. The court agreed such a cross-examination was appropriate.

[32] Before hearing further submissions, as part of the voir dire, the Defence cross-examined Mr. Moy-Lingomba on the circumstances of making the statements to Mr. Watts.

[33] The court hoped this cross examination might assist the Defence to identify, with some degree of particularity, a basis upon which the Defence’s request for an adjournment to bring an application or cross examination of other witnesses might be relevant.

[34] Mr. Moy-Lingomba testified on the voir dire:

• Mr. Moy-Lingomba repeated that he had “popped” pills before coming to the courthouse that day;
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba had been interviewed by the police before being put into the cells. During the police interviews, he was “pressured” to tell the police what he knew about the Brissett murder but he couldn’t remember that day at all or what he said that day; and
• Mr. Moy-Lingomba had a “slight” recollection about being asked questions by Mr. Watts but he “doesn’t know why he said certain things to him”. He assumed it was to impress Mr. Watts. However, he had no recollection of what he had said to Mr. Watts.

[35] After the conclusion of Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s evidence on the voir dire, the Defence counsel continued with his submissions to call other evidence. At this point, the Defence no longer wanted to cross examine the police officers who had interviewed Mr. Moy-Lingomba prior to the conversation with Mr. Watts.

[36] I will deal with each of the Defence submissions below.

The Law

[37] The issue for this court is to determine whether the ends of justice would best be served by permitting the cross examination on the prior inconsistent statements. See R. v. Carpenter (No. 2), (1982), 1 C.C.C. (3d) 149 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 155.

[38] As stated in R. v. Hall, 2015 ONSC 3452, at para. 19, it is usually in the interests of justice to permit cross examination under s. 9(2) when a witness has made a prior inconsistent statement with the testimony given in court. This is subject to the court’s overriding discretion not to permit cross examination on prior consistent statements. The court is required to consider all of the circumstances leading up to and the making of the witness’ prior inconsistent statements to determine whether to grant leave.

[39] The issue for this court is whether leave to cross examine on the prior inconsistent statements would, in all of the circumstances in which those statements were made, bring the administration of justice into disrepute. All relevant factors are to be considered in the exercise of the court’s discretion including reliability and voluntariness of the prior inconsistent statements. Any and the degree of police misconduct and its impact on the prior inconsistent statements would be a relevant factor. Another factor is the condition of the witness when the prior inconsistent statements were made such as whether the witness was impaired by alcohol, drugs or medical condition. Each of these and any other relevant factors must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. Many of these factors can, to some extent, be the subject matter of cross-examination. However, in some circumstances, the existence of these factors may cause the court to conclude that permitting cross-examination on these prior inconsistent statements would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, result in trial unfairness to the accused or establish that the prior inconsistent statements lacked sufficient probative value outweighed by the prejudice.

[40] As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Taylor, 2015 ONCA 448, 325 C.C.C. (3d) 413, at para. 51:

Reliability is not an essential component of a prior statement under s. 9(2), at least not in the same sense reliability is used in connection with prior statements admissible as substantive evidence under the principles exception to the hearsay rule...

[41] As a result, the court looks at all relevant circumstances in the making of the prior inconsistent statements before exercising its discretion to permit or deny cross-examination. Such an approach was taken by the court in R. v. Kenny, 2012 ONSC 1374, at paras. 45-49 and R. v. F.O, 2016 ONSC 1898, at paras. 14-15.

The Defence Adjournment and leave to cross-examine Mr. Watts

[42] Let me now turn to the Defence submissions:

The Consent Authorization

[43] The Defence requested an adjournment to bring an application to challenge the Consent Authorization. The exact basis or grounds to challenging the Consent Authorization was never explained by the Defence although counsel was given an opportunity to do so.

[44] The Defence has had the Consent Authorization and the Watts Audio for some time. It was provided during disclosure. The Defence had not previously brought an application or even raised an issue about the validity of the Consent Authorization.

[45] The issue and admissibility of the statements made by Mr. Moy-Lingomba to Mr. Watts and recorded in the Watts Audio has been a prominent issue since April 2016 when the Crown’s pre-trial application, relating to Mr. Moy-Lingomba's evidence, was brought. The Crown’s application was first dealt with by this court on May 9, 2016. The Crown application related to the admissibility of Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s statements to Mr. Watts as it was anticipated by the parties that Mr. Moy-Lingomba might continue to refuse to be sworn or affirmed as he had done at the preliminary hearing. The Crown application was not heard as all parties agreed to await and see whether Mr. Moy-Lingomba would be sworn or affirmed at trial. Nevertheless, it was clear the Consent Authorization and Mr. Moy-Lingomba's statements to Mr. Watts in the holding cells were a significant issue to be dealt with.

[46] The proposed cross-examination of Mr. Moy-Lingomba on his prior inconsistent statements to Mr. Watts comes as no surprise to the Defence. The Defence has known that the Crown would be calling Mr. Moy-Lingomba for months. The Defence has known that, if Mr. Moy-Lingomba gave evidence at trial and his evidence differed in a material way from the statements made by Mr. Moy-Lingomba to Mr. Watts, the Crown would seek leave to cross-examine Mr. Moy-Lingomba on those prior inconsistent statements.

[47] No application was brought by the Defence to challenge the Consent Authorization. The Defence did nothing to challenge the Consent Authorization until the Crown sought leave to use the Watts Audio in cross examining Mr. Moy-Lingomba in the middle of the trial. The result would be a delay of this jury trial.

[48] Based on the submissions of Defence counsel, without an application and without establishing any basis showing a minimal threshold of merit in such a proposed application, the adjournment to bring an application to challenge the Consent Authorization was summarily dismissed.

Cross-Examination of Mr. Watts

[49] The Defence continued to seek to cross-examine Mr. Watts as to the nature and extent of his conduct during these conversations. In essence to attack his credibility.

[50] The Defence also wanted to cross examine Mr. Watts on him “eliciting” statements from Mr. Moy-Lingomba and why Mr. Watts had been told to let Mr. Moy-Lingomba make the statement rather than “lead it” – my words not Defence counsel’s words.

[51] In my view, neither of these areas would assist this court in determining whether to exercise its discretion to permit cross examination on what Mr. Moy-Lingomba said. The encounter between Mr. Watts and Mr. Moy-Lingomba was recorded – although of poor quality. There is a Transcript which greatly assists in following the audio recording.

[52] Mr. Watt’s credibility has no bearing on statements made by Mr. Moy-Lingomba. It is not Mr. Watt’s statements which are at issue but Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s prior inconsistent statements.

[53] The first 27 minutes of the Watts Audio includes clear instructions to Mr. Watts regarding him not pressuring or leading Mr. Moy-Lingomba to make the statements and making no promises or threats. The rest of the Watts Audio includes the dialogue between the two (and some other inmates).

[54] Focussing on the specific inconsistencies on which the Crown seeks to cross-examine Mr. Moy-Lingomba, any issue regarding what Mr. Watts said, whether Mr. Watts led, elicited, pressured, suggested facts or statements from Mr. Moy-Lingomba are evident from the Watts Audio and the Transcript and can be the subject of submissions or cross-examination of Mr. Moy-Lingomba.

[55] The Defence suggested that the statements by Mr. Moy-Lingomba would not have been made except for the coaxing or questioning by Mr. Watts. I agree that, if Mr. Watts put some version of the shooting to Mr. Moy-Lingomba and asked him to agree with his version, Mr. Watt’s actions might fundamentally undermine the quality and reliability of Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s statements. But that is not what is disclosed on the Watts Audio or the Transcript. It is Mr. Moy-Lingomba that makes the extensive factual statements which are at the core of the prior inconsistent statements. Mr. Watts did not put a version of the shooting or suggest a motive to Mr. Moy-Lingomba or suggest a version where Mr. Moy-Lingomba went to the Rexwood apartments with Mr. Borden. In each case, these facts were volunteered information from Mr. Moy-Lingomba to Mr. Watts and not induced in any way by Mr. Watts’ statements, comments or questions.

[56] The essence of the Defence objection is that Mr. Watts kept the conversation going. He did. But that does not go to the fundamental reliability or voluntariness of Mr. Moy-Lingomba's statements and certainly not to the extent that the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute.

[57] I am not persuaded that the Defence has established any reasonable basis that the cross-examination of Mr. Watts would assist on the court’s final determination on whether to grant the Crown’s s.9 (2) application.

[58] The Defence request that Mr. Watts be called to testify on the voir dire was denied.

Reliability or Voluntariness of the Prior Inconsistent Statement

[59] I will deal with this because of Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s statement that he was "high" and didn’t remember what he had said. An assertion by a witness that he was pressured, intoxicated, “high” or other similar circumstances suggesting involuntariness or lack of reliability of the prior statement is not, by itself, sufficient to preclude cross-examination on the prior inconsistent statements.

[60] Often an application under s. 9 (2) arises when a witness wishes to recant a prior statement. A recanting witness might, and usually does, say or do anything to recant from his or her prior statements.

[61] At the preliminary inquiry, Mr. Moy-Lingomba avoided testifying by refusing to be sworn or affirmed. That didn’t work out well for Mr. Moy-Lingomba as he was charged with obstructing justice.

[62] Clearly, Mr. Moy-Lingomba is a reluctant witness at this trial. He unknowingly made statements to Mr. Watts of what occurred on June 7, 2011, about Juice and statements allegedly made by Juice. I have no doubt that Mr. Moy-Lingomba wishes he hadn’t said anything that day to Mr. Watts.

[63] Mr. Moy-Lingomba's statements to Mr. Watts appear to be cogent and clear statements of fact by him. There are some yelling and inaudible portions when speaking with other inmates, but Mr. Moy-Lingomba, with effort, can generally be heard to be speaking clearly and rationally. What he says is inconsistent with his evidence at trial.

[64] I reject the Defence submission that, it is clear from the audio, Mr. Moy-Lingomba was “high”. I cannot and do not conclude that from the Watts Audio.

[65] It is also noteworthy that there are statements made by Mr. Moy-Lingomba to Mr. Watts where Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s strong desire to not be a “snitch” and recant what he had said is apparent:

a) “I’m in the hole right now for crushing a snitch, nigga”; b) “I’m not snitching”; and c) “Even if I did know, who am I to put someone behind bars for 25 to Life? How does that make sense, dawg? Who -, what, what gives me the right, dawg? What gives me that right to give-, to make that man not have a fair chance when he goes to court, dawg? Yo, bro, I’m like, you guys are talking to the wrong guy, so go get another one”.

[66] Aside from Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s statement he was “high”, there is no other evidence that Mr. Moy-Lingomba was “high” or so “high” that the reliability or voluntariness of his statements is brought into serious question. Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s statement he was “high” is in stark contrast to his desire not to snitch and to recant what he said regarding Juice, the day of the shooting and the motive for the shooting.

[67] There is no evidence to suggest Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s prior inconsistent statements were anything but the result of his operating mind.

The Analysis

[68] I am satisfied that the material inconsistencies between Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s evidence at trial and that the prior inconsistent statements are material and relevant to:

a) The identity of the shooter: The Defence suggested that Mr. Borden or one of his crew had done the shooting. Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s prior statements suggest it was Juice who had the motive to murder Mr. Brissett and it was only coincidental that Mr. Borden and Mr. Moy-Lingomba were there that night; b) The credibility of Mr. Borden, a Vetrovec witness: Mr. Moy-Lingomba’s statement that Mr. Borden gave him the car keys to take Mr. Borden’s car is confirmatory of Mr. Borden and other witnesses that Mr. Borden was the driver of Mr. Ranglin’s vehicle, the vehicle the shooter got into; and c) The motive for the shooting: Mr. Moy-Lingomba appears to state that he was told by Juice he had been looking for his cousin’s killer and Juice would shoot him on sight.

[69] This is a classic case of a recanting witness to avoid his prior statements made to a third party inculpating a friend without knowing he was being recorded. The witness regrets having made the statements. The witness wishes to avoid having to answer questions truthfully or be confronted with his prior inconsistent statements.

[70] In this case, the interests of justice strongly favour granting the Crown application to cross-examine Mr. Moy-Lingomba on his prior inconsistent statements.

[71] I see no reason why the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute if Mr. Moy-Lingomba was cross examined on his prior inconsistent statements. There is no trial unfairness. The inconsistent statements are highly relevant and not subject to misuse by the jury - to assess the credibility of Mr. Moy-Lingomba.

Conclusion

[72] The Crown is granted leave to cross-examine Mr. Moy-Lingomba on the prior inconsistent statements made to Mr. Watts and, for ease of reference, I refer to the following portions of the Transcript:

a) Bottom of page 17 of 43 to the top of page 19 of 43; b) One sentence at the top of page 36 of 43; and c) Page 39 of 43.

[73] As requested by the Defence and agreed to by the Crown, the Crown will not make available to the jury or Mr. Moy-Lingomba the Transcript. The Crown will only use the playback of the Watts Audio for the purpose of its cross-examination on the specified prior inconsistent statements.

Ricchetti, J.

Released: June 29, 2016

COURT FILE NO.: Crim J(P) 1156/15 DATE: 20160629 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – SHELDON RANGLIN RULING ON CROWN S. 9 (2) CANADA EVIDENCE ACT APPLICATION RICCHETTI J. Released: June 29, 2016