His girlfriend’s eyes were gouged out and she became blind as a result of his attempt to get out of jail. A ruling by the Parole Board required Shane Jenkin, 42, to spend another two years in prison. There were three witnesses who testified: his psychiatrist and nurse. There was also one witness who testified on his behalf: the victim Tina Nash. A victim impact statement was given by Nash, who was blinded as a result of the incident on April 20, 2011. For irreparably blinding his partner in her Hayle, Cornwall, home in 2012, Jenkin was given a life sentence in prison. According to the evidence presented at Truro Crown Court, Jenkin had seen a video on eye-clawing the night before he attacked Nash.
Where did Tina end up?
“We can confirm that during an oral hearing at the end of May this year, a panel of the Parole Board rejected Shane Jenkins’ parole,” a Parole Board representative said. Priority is given to whether a prisoner’s potential release will constitute an unacceptable danger to the community and whether or not that threat may be mitigated. Statement: “A panel will thoroughly review a large array of facts, including specifics of the initial crime and any indicators of behavioural change, as well… investigate the harm done and impact that crime has had on the victims” “The safety of the general public is our number one priority. Under current law, he is eligible for a re-examination. After the parole review was completed in May, the Ministry of Justice will decide when the next examination will take place.” In his fifth attempt to get his parole granted, he was denied. Prior to his current confinement, he was admitted to a mental health center for treatment.
He recently participated in a program funded and established by psychologists to help folks recognize and resolve their concerns,” according to a statement from the Parole Board. There were plans for him to transfer to a different regime, one that equally aimed to aid in the discovery and resolution of a wide range of complex issues.”
The psychologist’s appraisal of Mr. Jenkin had been presented before the panel. He should remain in jail or prison according to the recommendations of Mr. Jenkin’s psychologist, community probation officer, and the person in charge of his case during his detention. I don’t want to talk about it. Everyone was against the idea of moving to an open environment. The panel concluded that Mr. Jenkin was being held in a secure facility where he could be adequately protected.”