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...

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@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.

---

You've also made an assumption. 

Crikey wasn't referring to this woman in regards to vigilantes but in general.

And I 100% agree - if the law is changed and address of ex-criminals are disclosed as this woman is suggesting then the implications of this are enormous.

It doens't matter what crime you have committed, once you are deemed fit to be set free by law, then you are also entitled to be left to get on with your life. Unsavoury for some but for good reason.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@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.

---

http://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/InformationAboutTheLaw/crime/Documents/Parole%20Information%20Kit.pdf

 Suspension of Parole
When your parole is suspended you become liable to resume serving the rest of your sentence and you will remain in prison to complete your sentence unless you successfully apply to have the suspension lifted.

Cancellation of Parole

When your parole is cancelled you become liable to resume serving the rest of your sentence and you will remain in prison to complete your sentence unless you successfully apply for another parole order in relation to that sentence at a later point in time.

The law clearly states that the prisoner has  accepted a licence to behave accordingly within the parameters of the orders made.

Define  "resume and complete your sentence" for me Crikey....  as it appears in complete conflict to your statement that "he has

served his incarceration time"

the law clearly states that a paroled prisoner under certain conditions (breach or cancellation of parole) has in fact not served

their incarceration time and maybe required to complete it

[polksaladallie]

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

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

---

Lawyers don't need to know about feelings, they must act according to the law.  In my experience, they have little empathy.  They are a different breed, and to be any other way would interfere with their work.

[sandypas]

We don't know what threats he may have made to her in the past.  After what she suffered and the fact that she knows him well, she would know what he may be capable of.  He served time because she had him charged and she would know if he could be likely to make her pay.  Under the circumstances, I wouldn't want him to know where I was either.

I don't think she necessarily wants to know where he is living but is upset that he is kept aware of where she is.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

We know the legal situation is that she doesn't need  to know. That is what the OP was about. Maybe she needs to know for emotional reasons even if they are based in unreality.

 While working in a maximum security prison 23 years ago, a prisoner (who,along with sexual offences, had murdered a girl who apparently looked like me) took a fancy to me. His sentence was drawing to a close and he would tell me 'I am coming to visit you when I get out on November 8th'. Even though I knew he probably wouldn't, it was still a relief when he was returned to a town about 8 hours away from me.

I know this is nothing to what that poor woman has been through and I wasn't traumatised by this person but nearly a quarter of a century later his face is clear to me and I can hear him telling me he will visit.

I cant imagine what it must be like for the wife not knowing if he is a state away ...or a block.

[twinkles**stars]

Of course she needs to know what area he resides in! Imagine having a need to move and ending up as neighours! He has her details why she's not permitted to know his is unbelievable and not acceptable.

Protect his privacy? He gave that right up IMO when her bashed this poor woman causing a loss of one eye and the baby she was carrying.

She has an Intervention Order in place....fantastic but her details are on that order. Stupid isn't it that she has to give her where abouts but he doesn;t?

[the_hawk*]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

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

---

Lawyers don't need to know about feelings, they must act according to the law.  In my experience, they have little empathy.  They are a different breed, and to be any other way would interfere with their work.

---

I think you have summed up the whole legal system well, little feeling or conscience.

Going by a number of comments many clearly dont understand what its like being a victim and clearly thats why the law protects the perpetrator and affords them more rights than the victim.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@colic2bullsgirlore wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@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.

---

http://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/InformationAboutTheLaw/crime/Documents/Parole%20Information%20Kit.pdf

 Suspension of Parole
When your parole is suspended you become liable to resume serving the rest of your sentence and you will remain in prison to complete your sentence unless you successfully apply to have the suspension lifted.

Cancellation of Parole

When your parole is cancelled you become liable to resume serving the rest of your sentence and you will remain in prison to complete your sentence unless you successfully apply for another parole order in relation to that sentence at a later point in time.

The law clearly states that the prisoner has  accepted a licence to behave accordingly within the parameters of the orders made.

Define  "resume and complete your sentence" for me Crikey....  as it appears in complete conflict to your statement that "he has

served his incarceration time"

the law clearly states that a paroled prisoner under certain conditions (breach or cancellation of parole) has in fact not served

their incarceration time and maybe required to complete it

---

Cherry Picking, eh?

When is parole cancelled?

[*elizabeths-mum*]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

Cherry Picking, eh?

When is parole cancelled?

---

when another crime is committed

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@sandypas wrote:

We don't know what threats he may have made to her in the past.  After what she suffered and the fact that she knows him well, she would know what he may be capable of.  He served time because she had him charged and she would know if he could be likely to make her pay.  Under the circumstances, I wouldn't want him to know where I was either.

I don't think she necessarily wants to know where he is living but is upset that he is kept aware of where she is.

---

I understand that Sandy, However, the law is a one size fits all system. Her intentions may be innocent, but can the law assume that is the same for all victims of crime? Has no victim or persons known to them ever decided to distribute their own type of justice? Never "taken the law into their own hands"?

What then happens to that person? (if they get caught) How many lives and families need to be destroyed before "justice is done"?