🐱 Paedophile says Grindr vigilante group who exposed and ensnared him violated his right to privacy

CatParty


A paedophile caught in a vigilante sting operation on Grindr is appealing his conviction in the UK Supreme Court, claiming it was a breach of his right to privacy.


Mark Sutherland, 37, believed he was communicating with a 13-year-old boy on the dating app Grindr, but he was actually speaking to a man named Paul Devine, a member of a “paedophile hunters” group called Groom Resisters Scotland.


When Sutherland arrived in Glasgow to meet the boy he was intercepted by the group, who streamed their encounter live online. They held him until the police arrived and arrested him.

Sutherland was found guilty of two charges of attempting to communicate indecently with an older child, and jailed for two years. He had previously been imprisoned for 21 months after sending explicit pictures and inappropriate messages to a 12-year-old boy two years earlier.



His case is now appearing before the UK’s highest court as Sutherland argues that the evidence against him was obtained unlawfully and breached his human rights.

His legal team say Devine was used as a “covert human intelligence source” by police without authorisation, and the evidence should therefore be ruled inadmissible.

The law surrounding this is currently unclear, but according to HM inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland, almost half of online grooming cases result from the activities of vigilante groups.


These groups are unregulated and untrained, and several senior police officers have expressed serious concerns about their activities. A report in February suggested that “a more robust proactive capability” on behalf of police was needed instead.


There is precedent for case based on vigilante evidence being overturned, as happened in Dundee when a court ruled that paedophile hunters’ messages amounted to “fraud” that were intended to induce the accused into committing a crime.

The Supreme Court ruling will be key as it will determine whether evidence gathered by the vigilante groups can be used in future court prosecutions, and whether this activity is compatible with human rights.
 
Based Scots.
download.jpg

"YE THOUGHT YE WERE GETTIN' A WEE LADDIE BUT IT WAS ME!"
 
The law surrounding this is currently unclear, but according to HM inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland, almost half of online grooming cases result from the activities of vigilante groups.
If it’s such a problem, why not pull some of the cops who spend all day monitoring Twitter for hate speech and put them on pedo patrol?
 
These groups are unregulated and untrained, and several senior police officers have expressed serious concerns about their activities. A report in February suggested that “a more robust proactive capability” on behalf of police was needed instead

Of course. The pedophiles aren’t the problem. The ones the police should be concerned about are the ones trying to catch them.

Dear Britain, please set yourself on fire. Sincerely, the World.
 
Wait so the 12 year old anime catgirl I'm GROOOOOOMIN! on the internet that asked me for so much personal information before we meet might be secretly a fed or vigilante?

No way!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrs Paul
Is Samuel Collingswood Smith going to be his attorney?
 
Obviously he's a nonce so happy for him to be set on fire, but the argument seems to be that using the info provided by the vigilantes is similar to an unauthorised wiretap. It'll be interesting to see where this ends up.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Draza and Marvin
I'm hopeful that the UK Supreme Court will actually make the right decision but given their precedent of allowing migrant rapists to run free because they don't understand English, I doubt that they will.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Troonologist PhD
Obviously he's a nonce so happy for him to be set on fire, but the argument seems to be that using the info provided by the vigilantes is similar to an unauthorised wiretap. It'll be interesting to see where this ends up.
I’m actually all right with them saying that the collected information needs some level of additional scrutiny first. But showing up and getting Chris Hansen’d should count for something.

Even if they don’t allow the actual collected info in court, they should at the very least allow these groups to call the cops, say “dude’s coming to X place thinking he’s going to meet a kid” and if the cops show up and dude’s there, that should be treated as... would the right term be res ipsa?
 
I’m actually all right with them saying that the collected information needs some level of additional scrutiny first. But showing up and getting Chris Hansen’d should count for something.

Even if they don’t allow the actual collected info in court, they should at the very least allow these groups to call the cops, say “dude’s coming to X place thinking he’s going to meet a kid” and if the cops show up and dude’s there, that should be treated as... would the right term be res ipsa?

I don't think the question is to do with the PMs being legit. The question is, are the cops allowed to access your PMs without authorisation, and if not, are they allowed to use your PMs as evidence if they were obtained by a third party without authorisation. I don't know the answer, but it's interesting.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Marvin
Back