Even if this person was being lied to, they were still fully in command of their own choice to knowingly do something illegal.

[Dilbertian]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52896427

^A convicted paedophile who was snared by a vigilante group is to have his case examined at the UK Supreme Court.

Judges at the UK's highest court will consider whether prosecutions based on the covert operations of "paedophile hunters" breach the right to privacy.^

How is the right to privacy compatible with protecting children from groomers? In general, yes, we must have the right to privacy, but shouldn’t a person sending illegal material with the explicit intent to break the law and to cause harm, loose their right to private communication?

Convicted and potential paedophiles are not tricked into grooming ‘children’ created by these vigilantes. They make their own choices, in full knowledge that their actions are illegal and unacceptable to society. Police have used this tactic. Why is it fraud if civilians do this?

Yanbu, i would question any judge who found in favour of this.

Unfortunately Human rights are non-negotiable. That's the point of them - they are basic rights for everyone.

Evidently this case is yet to be decided.

I have zero sympathy for child abuse (I shouldn't have to point this out but there's usually at least one arsehole who says otherwise if you do anything other than advocate ripping their lungs out without trial) - but we have to maintain the rule of law for everyone.

As to why it's "fraud" unless the Police do it - you'd have to ask the Judge why he/she thought that - they do seem to come with some odd ideas, often not seeming to bear any relation to the actual law, but we weren't there.

As the article suggests - these vigilantes would be less active and prevalent if the Police got on top of the issue instead.

The communications between the groomer and the vigilantes were private. They were revealed when the vigilantes presented to the police a recording they made in a public place. How is that a breach of privacy?

This makes me so mad.

The perp' is engaging with someone who they think is a child based on their conversations. When these conversations turn sexual, its incitement. Regardless of who the "child" actually is. The intent is there to sexually abuse a child and I can't believe this can be forgotten about for the sake of human rights.

Where do you actually draw the line???? Madness.

Agree with PP totally.

No one wants to see those intending to abuse children walk free, but at the same time laws against entrapment and protecting privacy are vital for us all - deciding human rights just don't matter for people you dislike erodes them for everyone. I understand the good intention behind these vigilante groups but if they end up prejudicing cases then they may ultimately do more harm than good. I agree that the police should be taking more action and that these vigilante groups only exist because of the widespread experience that not enough is being done 'officially' - but that really ought to be the focus, not amateur efforts that mean really well but which can end up breaking the law in and of themselves.

The problem is that when a bunch of randoms suddenly decide they want to play at being police, they create a short circuit in the protections we all have from the state.

There is a world of difference between someone acting as a private citizen and disclosing personal details they may have accidentally received to police, and someone setting out with the express intention of doing the same.

Not only are the police bound by the law, but as a result they can't just outsource the "tricky bits" to civilians in an attempt to get around the civil liberties we all enjoy based on the presumption of innocence.

It's a nuanced situation - hence the need for SCOTUK to examine it in detail.

Any American would recognise this as a potential violation of the 4th Amendment.

How is that a breach of privacy?
I don't know - I am not a lawyer.

Unfortunately Human rights are non-negotiable.

That's not true, article 8 is a derogable right which means it can be suspended in certain circumstances.

This is a really interesting legal point because these vigilante groups have been operating in a very grey area for years, but ostensibly with the police's support.

Personally I think they should carry on, the fewer child sex offenders on the streets the better, but I'm interested to see what happens.

This is a really interesting legal point because these vigilante groups have been operating in a very grey area for years, but ostensibly with the police's support.

Personally I think they should carry on, the fewer child sex offenders on the streets the better, but I'm interested to see what happens.

I think a better outcome would be the police doing more and there being no need for vigilantes. Obviously child abuse is abhorrent (as PP said, it shouldn't be necessary to point this out) but vigilante groups should not be the answer.

I think a better outcome would be the police doing more and there being no need for vigilantes.

Absolutely, 100% agree with that.

Personally I think they should carry on, the fewer child sex offenders on the streets the better, but I'm interested to see what happens.

The problem is that becomes "the end justifies the means" before it leaves the page, and we end up with zero rights.

"Human rights" or civil liberties are there as the last backstop in a world where the state has enormous power and you have fuck all. And it's a long established trick of authoritarian regimes to try and water them down by pointing at emotive cases and say "But think of the children".

If we want to continue to claim to be civilised (and there's no reason why we have to, if people so wish) then you can't have a situation where the state effectively bypasses restrictions placed on it by law.

I've never met anyone who understands human rights ever suggest giving any up. Much as I have never met a doctor that would advise starting smoking as a treatment for anything.

"I grant you pardon," said Louis XV to Charolais who, to divert himself, had just killed a man; "but I also pardon whoever will kill you."

I'm not sure we'd really like to live like that.

I've never met anyone who understands human rights ever suggest giving any up

Totally understand what you're saying re. authoritarian regimes, but I work in an area of human rights (don't want to be too specific) and there are many circumstances in which ECHR rights are suspended or deviated from. There are no "correct" answers because the issues aren't black and white (that's why we need judges to weigh in as in the case in the OP) but I think some derogation from human rights in some circumstances can be justified.

There are no "correct" answers because the issues aren't black and white (that's why we need judges to weigh in as in the case in the OP) but I think some derogation from human rights in some circumstances can be justified.

I agree on the understanding it's done in a transparent manner - ideally through the courts. Assuming you trust the courts of course.

It's fascinating in a terrifying way that for some reason the UK - or more specifically England - appears to be one of the few alleged democracies in the world that tries to give politicians powers they really shouldn't have. But then we have to continually fight the conflation in the public mind between vengeance and justice.

But then we have to continually fight the conflation in the public mind between vengeance and justice.

Absolutely, having to factor in the "public interest" is the most worrying part of it.

I'm really worried about this. There has been a deliberate policy over the last 10 years to defund the police, and change the way sex crime cases are prosecuted by ''focusing on the more clear cut cases.'' (That's been most apparent in the way rape cases have been handled.)
I'm concerned that this is all designed to pave the way for a private police force of some description.

I'm concerned that this is all designed to pave the way for a private police force of some description.

As long as we're all protected by those pesky "human rights" then they would be subject to the same controls the regular police are, although you can guarantee the UK would fight that all the way to the ECtHR. Same as votes for prisoners. (Which, incidentally still hasn't been resolved ....)

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

1. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

These groups are NOT helping the situation at all.

They publicly hunt and livestream confrontations with their targets, giving any connections a window of time to destroy evidence.

The family and neighbours of the targets then require police resources to protect them from violence.

They fuck up the chain of evidence, making cases unable to be prosecuted.

Then, if they are unhappy with the outcome, they make an official complaint against whichever officer(s) is assigned to the case, resulting in a suspension while the matter is investigated, consuming even more resources. Personally seen that happen.

There is a goddamn good set of reasons that the police don't do the things these half-arsed fuckwits do, and they'd catch a lot more paedophiles if they fucked off back under a rock.

They publicly hunt and livestream confrontations with their targets, giving any connections a window of time to destroy evidence.

Running paediatricians out of town.

Throwing rocks at pedaloes.

And hunting out centipedes wherever they find them.

It's like there is the 'good' vigilante, who hands over their information for the police to take further, and the 'bad' vigilante, who administers so-called justice and causes more problems.

I don't agree that there are good vigilantes. If they were rational, capable individuals, they would join the police services and do the job legitimately.

I struggle to understand where there was any breach of human rights in this case. The fact that he was lied to? I get that the vigilantes were lying with intent to defraud the paedophile, but not to steal from him, nor to trick him into doing something. He has complete freedom of choice not to groom a child. How can he have been tricked into doing something that he wanted to do and choose to do?

It's like there is the 'good' vigilante, who hands over their information for the police to take further, and the 'bad' vigilante, who administers so-called justice and causes more problems.

The problem in a society which does more than pay lip service to the concept of the rule of law, is that there is fuck all provenance and chain of custody documentation that is intended to ensure everyone gets a fair trial when vigilantes waddle into the frame (even in UK courts, which are much less scrupulous about illegally and unlawfully obtained evidence).

The bottom line is you don't break the law to unhold the law - or rather if you want to live in that kind of society ... well our grandparents had the chance. But for some reason we made a big thing about fighting totalitarian regimes, not copying them. Although clearly times change.

If anyone feels aggrieved that this court case is going ahead, perhaps they could see their way to some gentle Googling, to remind themselves how at every possible opportunity the police and associated authorities have done their best to discourage vigilantism. So please no faux expressions of outrage now.

I struggle to understand where there was any breach of human rights in this case. The fact that he was lied to?

No. It's the fact that the vigilantes took on the role of law enforcement but provided none of the protections that grown-up policemen (and other agents of the state) are required by law to ensure.

The role of the police in criminal justice is clearly set out in the huge volumes of laws enacted by parliament under the auspices of the HRA (which is derived from the UKs signatory to the ECHR).

The role of vigilintes would probably fit on a stamp with enough room for an address.

You can't have amateur sleuths running around the places gathering "evidence" and expect it to withstand the full glare of the court process - which has strict safeguards around how evidence is gathered and treated.

In the only room in the land which can deprive a person of liberty (and at one point their life) you should be overjoyed that there are such protections in place for all.

The alternative is to simply dispense with the law as it stands, and just let everyone dispense their own. Lucky you.

I'm quite happy to discuss what exactly constitutes human rights, and how they should be protected. I'm less happy to have to repeatedly explain the "human" bit of human rights as it suggests someone isn't paying attention at the back.

I am paying attention. This is not faux outrage. I understand and completely agree with there is fuck all provenance and chain of custody documentation that is intended to ensure everyone gets a fair trial when vigilantes waddle into the frame...The bottom line is you don't break the law to unhold the law

What I don't understand is this: A person is provided with the opportunity to knowingly break the law. They choose to go ahead and break the law. But because the opportunity provided was fraudulent, they cannot be convicted:

...a later case in Dundee was thrown out because evidence gained by a vigilante group was ruled "inadmissible."
In that case the sheriff said the means used to induce the accused, known only as PHP, into engaging in an exchange of messages amounted to "fraud".
... by pretending falsely to be young children, the vigilantes had acted unlawfully.

A burglar attempts to steal the jewellery in a shop window. When he picks it up he discovers that it is fake and changes his mind. Hasn't he been deceived in the same way as the defendant in the case mentioned above (same article as the one in the OP)? By the standard above, haven't the jewellers acted fraudulently by pretending that the gems in the window were real, therefore he can't be convicted of burglary?