The UK’s highest court is set to rule on whether prosecutions achieved through evidence gathered in covert sting operations by paedophile hunter groups are incompatible with a person’s human rights.
Mark Sutherland was convicted in August 2018 of attempting to communicate indecently with an older child, and related offences, after evidence collected by a paedophile hunter group was handed to police.
He brought a Supreme Court challenge arguing that his right to a private life, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had been breached and a ruling will be announced today.
At a previous hearing, a panel of five justices, including the court’s president Lord Reed, heard that in 2018, Sutherland matched up on website Grindr with someone who, when he communicated with them, claimed to be a 13-year-old boy.
He sent sexual messages and images and they agreed to meet at Partick station, in Glasgow.
In reality, the person Sutherland was communicating with was not a child, but a “decoy” – a member of a paedophile hunter group. The group confronted Sutherland at the arranged meeting, broadcasting the encounter on social media and handing the evidence to the police.
Sutherland appealed claiming the covert investigation, and the use of the resulting evidence by the authorities, breached his human rights.
Gordon Jackson QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, representing Sutherland, told the court: “The police are aware that there a number of hunter organisations operating in Scotland and the UK and evidence submitted from these organisations has led to a number of criminal investigations and convictions.”
There is “disquiet” about the work of such groups, he said.
Mr Jackson also outlined that “a huge number” of cases were prosecuted because of information obtained by these groups.
Alison Di Rollo QC, Solicitor General for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Scotland’s Prosecution Service, which is opposing the appeal, argued that the criminal prosecution of sexual conduct between an adult and a child “does not engage” someone’s rights to privacy.
Ms Di Rollo said it was clear that the “overriding duty” of the police was “to respond to any report of any identified person who may pose a sexual risk to children”.
