Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC149

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

24^th July 2009

Before     :

F. C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner and Jurats Clapham and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

Scott Leonard Charles Furlong

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:	Being disorderly on licensed premises, contrary to Article 82 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).
2 counts of:	Grave and Criminal assault (Counts 3 and 4).

Age:  24.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Having been up drinking all night the accused went to Checkers, Queen's Road, with a friend.  He attempted to buy alcohol and was refused.  He became angry and aggressive and punched a till with his clenched fist causing the screen to fly off.

During interview he identified himself on CCTV at the first opportunity but said he could remember nothing and was shocked.  He admitted being drunk at the time (Count 1).

On another occasion the accused was walking through town during the early hours.  He was randomly stopped by the Police and found to be in possession of two pieces of cannabis resin (total 2.04 grams).

During interview he admitted at the first opportunity that the cannabis belonged to him and that he knew he had it with him.  He said he was staying temporarily with his sister and had not wished to leave the cannabis at her accommodation (Count 2).

On a further occasion the accused encountered a group of young persons in town during the early hours of one morning.  He was abusive to them and followed them resulting in a chase through town streets and the ground floor of Green Street Car Park.

Having pursued the group up the car park steps leading to La Route du Fort one of the group, a 15 year old youth, turned left.  The others turned right.  The accused caught the youth who had turned left and subjected him to a vicious attack including five punches to the head, approximately three kicks to the back of the legs, a throw to the floor, kicks to the body seven or eight times, two hard stamps to the head and further punching to the body.

The youth escaped and ran in the direction of Georgetown.  Just before the traffic lights at the junction with St Clement's Road the accused caught him again and subjected him to a further attack involving a throw to the floor, kicks to the body and further punches.

Again, the youth escaped but was shortly caught again by the accused, who threw him to the floor and kicked him.  He again escaped and ran to nearby premises (Count 3).

The victim suffered high impact blunt and scratching type trauma including bruising, lacerations and abrasions to most areas of his face, back of the head, right arm and left knee.  Injuries to his eyebrow and nose were glued at hospital.

During interview the accused claimed he had encountered a group of young people in the town who had chased him through town streets.  He had therefore decided to chase them.  The accused admitted kicking and punching a man and agreed he may also have stamped on him.  He said he had been in a frenzy and showed no remorse.

At about the same time an 18 year old Portuguese man was walking home down St Clement's Road.  He encountered the accused, who had both his hands behind his back.  Suddenly he brought one of his hands, in which he was holding a large plastic Coca-Cola bottle, to the front and struck the man with the bottle causing a deep laceration within the left ear which had to be glued at hospital (Count 4).

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas (although those relating to Counts 1 and 2 were not entered at the earliest opportunity).  Remorse in relation to Count 1 only.  On the accused's version of events an element of provocation in relation to the more serious of the grave and criminal assaults.

Previous Convictions:

Appalling record containing multiple previous convictions, predominantly for motoring and dishonesty related offences but including a conviction before the Royal Court in 2007 for grave and criminal assault (in respect of which he was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment).

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	6 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3 years and 2 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Exclusion order from all licensed premises (except shops selling food) for a period of 12 months following his release from prison sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

This was a difficult case.  The Crown Advocate had outlined the facts in great detail.

The Court had read the Social Enquiry and other reports.  The consultant Psychiatrist had concluded the accused's motivation ran contrary to the principles of the modern mental health.  The accused had informed him prison would be his first choice.

The Social Enquiry Report recommended probation but recognised this was a high risk option.

The accused's Advocate had said on his behalf all that could be said.  The Court had taken his submissions into account.

The accused had been released from prison in January 2009.  The instant offending happened only months later.

The accused had a sad life and his problems were huge.

The Court would not, however, tolerate violence of this type on the streets of St Helier.

In all the circumstances the Crown's conclusions would be followed (with a minor exception).  The following sentences would therefore be imposed:-

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 2:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3 years' and 1 month's imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

The Court would not make an exclusion order and hoped the accused would regularise himself whilst in prison.  Prison would allow him to complete the Aggression Control Training programme..

A. J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Crown Advocate Belhomme has outlined the matter in the greatest detail and we shall not repeat it here except to say that we have of course, the Social Enquiry Report, psychiatric report and the Drug and Alcohol Report.  The consultant psychiatrist has no further observations for the Court other than to say that Furlong's motivation is contrary to the principles of modern mental health and that he would accept a custodial sentence as first choice, but of course, Furlong was unknown to the psychiatrist at the time.  It is the Social Enquiry Report that recommends a probation order but it is of course a high risk order.  Advocate Bell has said all that can be said and we have had close regard to the case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

2.        Furlong only came out of prison after serving a sentence for Grave and criminal assault in January 2009 and these offences occurred some months later. 

3.        Furlong you have had a very sad life but you still have residual youth on your side.  You have enormous problems and these assaults, although there was provocation in one case, were horrendous.  This Court will not tolerate violence in St Helier and you could have walked away instead of pursuing your victims.  The public have to be protected. 

4.        We are going to follow the conclusions of the Crown.  I have to say that we have been encouraged by the progress you have made and we are sorry to have to send you, yet again, to prison.

5.        Count 1; 1 month's imprisonment, consecutive, Count 2; 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent, Count 3; 3 years' imprisonment, Count 4; 6 months' imprisonment, those two are concurrent.  That is a total of 3 years and 1 month's imprisonment.

6.        We are not going to make an exclusion order but you must regulate yourself when you eventually come out of prison.  Learn a trade in prison and carry on with the Aggression Control Training Course while you are there.

7.        Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Furlong [2007] JRC 060.

AG-v-Ware and Gibaut [2008] JRC 002.

AG-v-Nolan 2002/182.

AG-v-Porteous 2001/138.

AG-v-Wallace [2009] JRC 095.