Victim not allowed to know where paroled attacker lives to protect his privacy :(

[twinkles**stars]

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/victoria/victim-not-allowed-to-know-where-paroled-attacker-live...

inShare

Domestic vioence victim Jeannie Blackburn is lobbying the government to release information regarding the whereabouts of violent criminals who have been released on parole.

A VICTIM of terrifying domestic violence has been told she is not allowed to know the area where her paroled attacker is living because of HIS right to privacy.

Jeannie Blackburn suffered 18-months of unprovoked violent abuse at the hands of Paul Francis McCuskey, culminating in her losing sight in one eye after he dragged her from her bed and stomped on her head.

Medical experts said her injuries were similar to that of a high impact car crash.

McCuskey was released from prison in April - with two and a half years to serve on parole - but pleas to the Adult Parole Board and Victims of Crime Register to know the area where he is living have been denied.

In a bizarre twist, McCuskey has been informed of where Ms Blackburn lives, as he is not allowed to go near her address.

"I don't want to know what street or even what suburb he is in, but just a general area to avoid for my own protection." Ms Blackburn said.

"I am being made to feel like a prisoner in my own home while he is free to walk the streets as he pleases.

"Why does he have more rights than I do, when I have done nothing wrong?"

Paul Francis McCuskey who is on parole for domestic violence against his ex-partner Jeannine Blackburn, who is fighting to know where her attacker is now living.

The woman beater also caused Ms Blackburn to miscarry after kicking her in the stomach in another sickening attack.

McCuskey, who received a bravery award for being one of several CFA volunteers who rescued an elderly woman at Cambarville during the 2009 Black Saturday bush fires, later had the honour stripped after intervention from the Governor General of Australia, Quentin Bryce.

He was sentenced to five years and six months in prison, with a minimum of three years, in April 2010.

Ms Blackburn said she contacted the Adult Parole Board to find out the general area of where he was living after his release on April 27 this year.

She claims she was told they could not tell her due to his right to privacy. The allegation is denied by the Adult Parole Board.

Ms Blackburn said she then contacted the Victims of Crime Register and wrote a letter requesting the information early last month without reply.

Domestic vioence victim Jeannie Blackburn is lobbying the government to release information regarding the whereabouts of violent criminals who have been released on parole.

Its website states: "Inclusion on the Register does not entitle you to information about… Where the prisoner / offender lives or intends

to live upon release from prison."

Ms Blackburn now intends to lobby the State Government to change the law.

"He lost his privacy rights when he pleaded guilty to intentionally, recklessly and seriously injuring me, at least while on parole" she said.

"Laws should be in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty."

A spokesman for the Adult Parole Board said McCuskey is subject to a "strict supervision regime."

"If Mr McCuskey fails to comply with any condition of his order, he will be immediately reported to the Board," he said.

jon.kaila@news.com.au

Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/national-news/victoria/victim-not-allowed-to-know-where-paroled-attacker...

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@patchoo78 wrote:

If the "ex" crim is entitled to his privacy even though he hasn't fully served his time, then why isn't the victim entitled to hers also?

He may have served some of his time, but what's stopping him from trying to attack her again?

Privacy works both ways IMO

---

I'm guessing that he has been told where he has to avoid going.

What's stopping him from trying to attack her again? Australian Law does not operate on a precrime system. The offender can only be tried for crimes he has committed, not for ones that people think he may commit in the future.

I don't believe it is about privacy completely, as I said, this man will be released into society eventually, I guess we can only hope that he has the best chance at rehabilitation that is possible so that he doesn't reoffend.

BTW - clearly the law states that he has served his incarceration time, and now only needs to serve his parole time, which is in the general population.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@mtnlane wrote:

Your assumption that she wants his address to act as some sort of vigilante has no basis in fact.

Unless you have been in that woman's situation or something similar to it, you have little idea of her motivation so I have to suppose that you have not been in a similar situation.

---

It is you who has made the assumptions.

I wrote why the law is as it is. I did not write why this one woman was not allowed to know his whereabouts. Laws are pretty much made for everyone, not for individual cases.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

I hope that the lady gets to know exactly where he lives.. and soon. He could easily find her I am sure. 

---

How will knowing his residential address help her?

[j*oono]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

But why does she need to know? He's done his time so there is no reason for the information to be divulged.

---

Martini, I think it is only fair for her to know that he is not in her area.  If she only wants to know that he's not in her suburb or  street, what is wrong with that?

Is that a donkey in his car or is it a llama?

[mtnlane]

Raising the issue of vigilantes, in my opinion, implies her request has been made for the purpose of harassing him in some manner.

This is not a legal forum but one where contributors can opine regarding a topic.  Had it been the former, you would not have had to 'guessed' that he had been told where he was to avoid going.

Without knowing the specific terms of his parole but knowing that he was not permitted to approach within a defined radius of his victim's residence, indicates that his victim could not be considered 'in the general population'.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@mtnlane wrote:

Raising the issue of vigilantes, in my opinion, implies her request has been made for the purpose of harassing him in some manner.

Then you are wrong

This is not a legal forum but one where contributors can opine regarding a topic.  Had it been the former, you would not have had to 'guessed' that he had been told where he was to avoid going.

Without knowing the specific terms of his parole but knowing that he was not permitted to approach within a defined radius of his victim's residence, indicates that his victim could not be considered 'in the general population'.

---

Did you even read the article?

[mtnlane]

Indeed I did but you obviously do not understand the words 'in my opinion'.

I tend not to 'guess' things in relation to issues such as these and would prefer to rely on my life experience and training to form the basis of my opinions  

[catsnknots]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

I hope that the lady gets to know exactly where he lives.. and soon. He could easily find her I am sure. 

---

How will knowing his residential address help her?

---

lets hope that you are never raped, beaten, abused, assaulted or anything else so that you never have to know the vulnerabilities a victim of crime feels..... knowledge is power and security... so she might not feel that she is walking in an area where she might come across him. 

I can very vividly remember happening across a person that harmed me once..... the fear was with me for weeks as I worked near where I saw him. 

Considering you are studying law and will one day become a lawyer I would suggest you start to consider how a a victim of crime might be very vulnerable. 

I would never want a lawyer to represent me that was not acutely aware of how I might be feeling. 

[*crikey*mate*]

at no time have my personal thoughts or opinions about the laws surrounding this even entered this thread.

I simply stated one of the reasons for why the law is as it is regarding this matter. I did not say I agreed with the law.

[***super_nova***]

Unless the man would be ordered not ever to leave the area that he is living in, her knowing where he lives serves absolutely no purpose.  She can bump into him anywhere.  I recall going to Cairns for holidays and the first people I met there was somebody living in out street in Melbourne LOL. 

As said above there is plenty of good reasons why info is not giving out to anybody unless there is a reason.  Like the man being told he is not allowed to go near her residence, so he has to be told which area he is not allowed to go to.  But he can go anywhere else he wants to.  Really, if she is so scared of him, and obviously she has a good reason to be, the best option for her would be to move to other city.  He then would not have to be told where she is, as I am sure on parole he cannot leave the place where he is now and has to report regularly.  And yes, it is not fair.