MARTIN MCCULLION'S SECRET ADDRESS IN BLACKBURN: COURT BLOCKS PUBLICATION OVER SAFETY FEARS

In September 2003, a 51-year-old man named Martin McCullion, known for his past convictions related to child sexual offenses, appeared before magistrates in Blackburn to face charges of failing to notify authorities of a change in his residential address. The court's decision to withhold his new address from the public was driven by serious concerns over his safety and the potential for vigilante retaliation.

Robin Phoenix, representing McCullion, argued that his client had been subjected to physical violence and verbal abuse following his conviction at Bolton Crown Court in February 2000. This conviction involved three counts of indecent assault on children under the age of 14, for which McCullion was sentenced to 15 months in prison. Phoenix emphasized that McCullion had not been involved in any trouble since that time, but his life had become increasingly difficult after separating from his partner.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the magistrates initially approved the application to keep McCullion’s address confidential without knowing that he had a prior conviction for a similar offense in 1996. This earlier conviction was not disclosed until later in the proceedings, raising questions about the full extent of his criminal history.

Prosecutor Lisa Worsley provided details about McCullion’s recent movements, stating that he had moved from his last registered address on York Street in Blackburn to the Audley Range area before settling at his current residence. McCullion claimed to police that he had forgotten about the legal obligation to notify authorities of any change of address, which contributed to the charges against him.

In response, Phoenix requested a conditional discharge for 12 months and asked the court to impose a £65 costs order. The magistrates acknowledged the public’s right to be informed but expressed concerns about the potential consequences of making McCullion’s address public. They stated that revealing his location could lead to vigilante actions, which might escalate into criminal activity or physical and verbal abuse directed at him.

Ultimately, the magistrates decided to keep McCullion’s address confidential, citing the risk of harm and the importance of protecting his safety. They recognized the public interest but prioritized his personal security, ruling that the publication of his address should be prohibited to prevent possible vigilante retaliation.