Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Grave and Criminal Assault - Assault - Malicious damage

[2019]JRC089

Royal Court

(Samedi)

17 May 2019

Before     :

A. J. Olsen, Esq., Lieutenant Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Pitman

The Attorney General

-v-

Scott Leonard Charles Furlong

Zoe Leonora Furlong

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

Scott Leonard Charles Furlong

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).
3 counts of:	Malicious damage (Count 3, Count 4, Count 5)

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The defendants are brother and sister.  Scott Furlong and the victim had been in an intermittent relationship for several years.  Mr Furlong has previous convictions for common assault and grave and criminal assault upon her.

 

The present grave and criminal assault took place in the victim's home in the early hours of Saturday 7^th December, 2018.  Miss Furlong had been staying with the victim due to problems at her own home address, and Mr Furlong had no fixed abode at the time, having only been released from prison a few weeks previously.

 

Having returned from a bar in the early hours there was an argument, and with no provocation Miss Furlong punched the victim to the face while Mr Furlong held her down.  The victim sustained several injuries including bleeding from the eye and a subconjunctival haematoma which subsequently burst.  Her face was so swollen it was difficult for her to talk, and she was kept in hospital for observation as there were concerns as to possible fractures or brain injury.  A psychological report considered that the significant decline in the victim's mental health was as a result of the assault by two people she considered friends.

 

The Force Medical Examiner who examined the victim later opined that the injuries were as a result of "a sustained assault with pattern of frenzied punching with the right hand alternating with the left hand...".  He put the minimum number of punches at seven and said it could well have been more. He concluded: "I have been practicing as a Forensic medical examiner for 18 years and examined many hundreds of victims of assault, and [the victim's] injuries are quite shocking to me and are some of the worst injuries I have seen in my clinical practice." (Count 1). Mr Furlong and Miss Furlong, acting in concert, are considered equally to blame for the injuries caused. Neither defendant received any injury themselves.

 

Miss Furlong also assaulted the victim's friend, who came to her aid by pulling at his hair and pulling out a dreadlock (Count 2).  Mr Furlong faced three counts of malicious damage arising out of events which preceded the assault, on 24^th and 26^th November, 2018, where he had smashed the front passenger window of a white Transit van belonging to the Coop, thrown objects from an apartment balcony damaging a vehicle below, and snapped a car-parking barrier by bending it in the opposite way.  There was no known motive for these offences

Details of Mitigation:

Both defendants entered guilty pleas on an agreed basis.

 

Mr Furlong contacted the victim from HMP La Moye soon after the assault and apologised. Miss Furlong expressed remorse.

Previous Convictions:

Mr Furlong has 30 convictions for 144 offences, including a previous common assault and a grave and criminal assault upon the same victim.  On the last occasion in 2015 he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for assaulting the victim by hitting her on the head with a photograph frame, punching her face, and pinning her to the floor.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	2 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  2 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 

Restraining order sought to commence from date of sentence for a period of 5 years under Article 5 of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) law, 2008, as amended with the condition that the defendant is prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect with the victim. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	2 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3 and Count 4.

Total:  2 years and 9 months' imprisonment. 

Restraining order made to commence from date of sentence for a period of 7 years under Article 5 of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) law, 2008, as amended with the following conditions:

1.      The defendant is prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect (to include any form of social media or any other electronic communication), with the victim.

2.      The defendant is prohibited from entering or loitering within 50 metres of any premises known to him to be the home address of the victim.

3.      The defendant is prohibited from entering or loitering within 50 metres of any premises known to him to be the work address of the victim.

4.      Should the defendant see or come into contact with the victim in any public or private place he must take immediate action to avoid any breach of this Order.

Zoe Leonara Furlong

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).
1 count of:	Common assault (Count 2).

Age:  33.

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See above.

Details of Mitigation:

See above.

Previous Convictions:

Five convictions for 10 offences

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  18 months' imprisonment. 

Restraining order sought to commence from date of sentence for a period of 5 years under Article 5 of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) law, 2008, as amended with the condition that the defendant is prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect with the victim.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	21 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1.

Total:  21 months' imprisonment. 

Restraining order made to commence from date of sentence for a period of 7 years under Article 5 of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) law, 2008, as amended with the following conditions:

1.      The defendant is prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect (to include any form of social media or any other electronic communication), with the victim.

2.      The defendant is prohibited from entering or loitering within 50 metres of any premises known to him to be the home address of the victim.

3.      The defendant is prohibited from entering or loitering within 50 metres of any premises known to him to be the work address of the victim.

4.      Should the defendant see or come into contact with the victim in any public or private place he must take immediate action to avoid any breach of this Order.

R. MacRae, Esq., Attorney General appeared for the Crown.

Advocate I. E. Jones for Scott Furlong.

Advocate J. C. Gollop for Zoe Furlong.

JUDGMENT

THE lieutenant BAILIFF:

1.        As will be apparent from the length of time we have been out, we have been giving very close and detailed attention to this matter.  I am sorry that we are back a little later than we indicated. 

2.        The grave and criminal assault that forms the basis of Count 1 was an act of extreme violence on a defenceless, vulnerable woman in her own home.  It was particularly vicious; it could indeed be characterised as frenzied.  While Scott Furlong held the victim down, Zoe Furlong punched her repeatedly and with great violence in the face, by her own admission at least three times, though Dr Newton, who examined the victim later that day, put the minimum number of punches at seven, adding that it could well have been more.

3.        Dr Newton described the victim's injuries thus:

"(a) Considerable deformity of the left cheek and swelling so significant that it was difficult for her to open her mouth;

(b) Bruising to the lower lip seen when her mouth was opened by hand;

(c) Bruising inside the left cheek...;

(d) Considerable bruising and reddening of the left eye from the edge of the nose to the mid pupil area; and

(e) The right eye was closed over with severe swelling and bleeding into the subconjunctiva from the pupil to the lateral edge of the eye; and

(f) Bleeding from the eyelid and subconjunctival haematoma, which subsequently burst."

The doctor later opined that the injuries resulted from "a sustained assault with pattern of frenzied punching with the right hand alternating with the left hand..."  He concluded thus:

"I have been practicing as a Forensic medical examiner for 18 years and examined many hundreds of victims of assault, and [the victim's] injuries are quite shocking to me and are some of the worst injuries I have seen in my clinical practice."

4.        The court as presently constituted has never seen language like that in a medical report before.  Some four months later Dr Evans examined the victim and noted that she still reported tenderness to one cheek and that it was still swollen with a feeling of "bogginess".  The victim report a lump on her inner left lip which is consistent with scarring following blunt trauma. 

5.        The photographs that we have seen of the victim are graphically illustrative of the prolonged and frenzied nature of the attack that she suffered, and in addition there has been a very serious deterioration in her mental health following the assault as set out in the psychological report that we have now seen.  It is an aggravating feature of this crime that there were two against one.  It is also an aggravating feature that the attack was carried out in the very place where the victim was entitled to feel safe, namely her own home.  This very serious assault constituted a gross abuse of the victim's hospitality as Zoe Furlong was staying with her at the time.  It was also we think a gross abuse of their friendship. 

6.        The Royal Court in AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104 said this:

"A person's home, however big or small it is, is their refuge and if the person with whom the home is shared uses violence the victim suffers a double violation; a violation by a person that they have trusted and a violation in their own home"

And importantly this:

"People who commit these offences can expect the Court to focus on the victims and not on their hardships and on their difficulties."

7.        Zoe Furlong also assaulted a friend of the victim who was present and had tried to intervene and help her.  She pulled out one of his dreadlocks; he also suffered subconjunctival haematoma on the right eye with slight bruising on the lids, together with abrasions to the left forearm and elbows.  That assault forms the basis of Count 2, and we think that it was a common assault of some significant seriousness. 

8.        Scott Furlong has also pleaded guilty to three unrelated counts of malicious damage, being Count 3, 4 and 5 of the Indictment.  They strike us as particularly mindless and wanton acts of vandalism, and we shall be imposing consecutive sentences in regard to those. 

9.        Both defendants have criminal records.  That of Scott Furlong is a long a dreadful one.  He has previously been convicted for offences of violence.  We note particularly that Scott Furlong has twice been convicted of assaults against this victim.  For the second, a grave and criminal assault, he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment in 2016. 

10.      As to mitigation, we can find no single mitigating feature in the offences themselves, and neither Advocate Jones nor Advocate Gollop has sought, quite properly, to advance any.  As to the excessive consumption of alcohol, as has often been said in this Court and indeed other courts, this is not a mitigating factor; if anything it is an aggravating feature, particularly when as here it fuels violence.  As to general mitigation we give full credit for the guilty pleas, particularly in relation to Count 1.  It came late, but is worth a great deal because it has saved the victim the ordeal of giving evidence.  So we do give credit for that, otherwise the sentences would undoubtedly be higher.  We understand that Scott Furlong telephoned the victim from prison and apologised and that call was recorded.  We note also that Zoe Furlong expressed some remorse when speaking to the Probation Officer, and we have just seen her letter of apology, which we also take into account as well as the other mitigation so ably advanced by counsel.  We are very pleased to hear that she is doing well in prison and taking advantage of the opportunities afforded to her there.

11.      We note the great difficulties so unfortunately experienced by both defendants in their youth.  They had a very poor start in life, and we have taken fully into account all that as set out in the excellent Social Enquiry Reports. 

12.      In considering the appropriate sentence in relation to the first two counts we have also have regard to the factors set out in Harrison v AG [2004] JRL 111 and the other cases to which the Crown drew our attention for illustrative purposes.  We have taken account of the mitigation, the seriousness of the offence, the culpability, but we have taken most into account the dreadful impact that this assault has had on the victim.  She has suffered a serious deterioration in her mental health.  In the words of one of the Jurats, she has lost her friendship, she has lost her home and she has lost her mind.  The effect of the assault could hardly have been more devasting.  As was said in the case of Horn, people who commit these assaults should expect the Court to focus far more on the victim than their own difficulties.  

13.      Scott Furlong, on Count 1 you are sentenced to 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment; on Count 3 you are sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive; on Count 4, to 3 months' imprisonment concurrent; Count 5; 3 months' imprisonment concurrent, making a total of 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment. 

14.      Zoe Furlong, on Count 1 we think that the conclusions are insufficient to mark the seriousness of this offence and the impact you have had on your victim.  The sentence of imprisonment will be one of 21 months; on Count 2 we sentence you to 3 months' imprisonment concurrent, making a total sentence of 21 months' imprisonment.

15.      The Crown has asked for a restraining order under Article 5 of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) law, 2008 and we grant that order in the following terms. 

(i)        Scott Furlong and Zoe Furlong (the defendants) are prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect (to include any form of social media or any other electronic communication), with the victim.

(ii)       The defendants are prohibited from entering or loitering within 50 metres of any premises known to them to be the home address of the victim.

(iii)      The defendants are prohibited from entering or loitering within 50 metres of any premises known to them to be the work place of the victim.

(iv)      Should either of the defendants see or come into contact with the victim in any public or private place they must take immediate action to avoid any breach of this Order.

This order will be in force for a period of 7 years.  Any breach of this order by the defendants will be an offence and will be liable to imprisonment up to 2 years and a fine.  Each of the defendants will sign a separate copy of this order which I understand has been agreed by counsel. 

Authorities

AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104. 

Harrison v AG [2004] JRL 111. 

Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) law, 2008

AG v Nicolle [2018] JRC 139

AG-v-Keenan [2018] JRC 104

AG-v-Duffy [2017] JRC 131

AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182

AG-v-E [2016] JRC 131

AG-v-Cooney [2019] JRC 039A.