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?

Dilbertian

The "evidence" that these groups is thrown out as it doesn't meet the required levels to be forwarded.

There are rules that have to be followed to prove that the evidence is real, or hasn't been tampered with.

These groups often do not follow these rules.

And a lot of these groups get it wrong.

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:

by pretending falsely to be young children, the vigilantes had acted unlawfully.

In UK law it is illegal to pretend to be something you are not in order to lure a child into sexual activity. So by pretending to be underage children, these genius vigilantes themselves were straightaway guilty of grooming. And from what I can see that is the point upon which the whole sorry house of cards collapses.

In your example ..

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.

it's a little more akin to a bunch of vigilantes break a jewellers window, and then hide (probably not very well - we've already established they are idiots) and pounce on the first person who leans into the (now broken) display to inspect the "jewels" saying "Gotcha !".

Probably not a perfect analogy. But we return to a theme. You don't uphold the law by breaking it. Certainly not if you aren't the police.

Very few vigilantes have ever done any good in history or across the world. And if they feel so aggrieved by the lack of the government "doing something about it", it's a shame they couldn't invest their time and effort into volunteering, or scouting, or adopting, or DoE or any number of activities that would benefit young people much more than running around the country pretending to be Batmans younger brother.

Vigilantism is all very well until someone innocent gets killed.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/vigilante-lee-james-life-murdering-bijan-ebrahimi

(I can't post that story without tearing up - and I'm supposed to be a professional FFS).

If you want to support vigilantes being allowed to do as they please then how many Bijan Ebrahimis are you prepared to allow a year ? One ? Two ? Maybe 10 in a 10 year period ?

Or - novel idea. Howabout zero, and we do all we can as a society to discourage these gory glory seekers and support the proper authorities. And if we aren't happy with the proper authorities, use our democratic rights to replace them.

That's the other argument against vigilantism. It's so fucking lazy.

In UK law it is illegal to pretend to be something you are not in order to lure a child into sexual activity.

But they weren't trying to lure a child into sexual activity.

There are a LOT of problems with the way the groups operate.

When the police use subterfuge online in order to catch criminals, they won't be relying only on that interaction as evidence. They might use that interaction to establish a pattern of behaviour and justify permission to extend their search to the individual's home, devices, etc. Their job is to get as much evidence as they can and roughly to know what will be sufficient to secure a conviction.

The breach of a person's right to privacy happens when the vigilantes film and livestream their confrontation with the individual. They publicise the name, face, address, etc with a presumption of guilt, which is the opposite of how the legal system works.

And yes, OP if a thief picks up an item of jewellery, decides it's fake, and puts it down again, then they haven't stolen it. They may have committed another crime to gain access to the jewellery, but they haven't committed theft.

It's similar to the reason why supermarkets will often allow one or two acts of shoplifting occur (on film) before they step in and arrest the shoplifter. It's not enough to stop a person in the shop and accuse them-- they have to prove that they actually intended to walk out of the shop without paying.

Don't the police sometimes set up identical situations, pretending to be a child online in order to catch a groomer?

Cross posted.

And yes, OP if a thief picks up an item of jewellery, decides it's fake, and puts it down again, then they haven't stolen it. They may have committed another crime to gain access to the jewellery, but they haven't committed theft.

I've no legal training, but IIRC entering someone else's property with the intent to commit theft is a criminal offence. Some years ago I was one of residents of a block of flats where we were having problems with members of the public using our land without permission. The police advised us as to what we could do and what they could do - basically nothing, unless those people caused damage or harm, or made us fear damage or harm, or stole something, or could be proven to have intended to steal something.

I think it’s a vast deal better when the actual authorities are setting up situations like this than vigilante groups. The police will know what evidence is permissible in court.

The police might set up a similar situation to identify individuals whose behaviour may be inappropriate. But as I said above, that interaction will not be the whole basis of a criminal charge against the person. It's the starting point to identify people who need to be investigated further. What they find and use as evidence of a crime will be much more substantial.

Yes, as I said- they may have committed an offence in order to gain access to the jewellery.

That offence is "entering the property with the intention of theft". But if they don't steal it, then they didn't commit theft. Two separate offences.
And unfortunately it's damn tough to prove intention unless they follow through with the theft.

Wow, just like to say that the discussion in this thread has been more intellgent and considered than I expected.

Don't the police sometimes set up identical situations, pretending to be a child online in order to catch a groomer?

I would fucking well hope not. If nothing else it would hand any real paedophiles a perfect excuse for their behaviour ( Well, your honour, I actually thought I was talking to a 40 year old man which is what really floats my boat, since I read that the police trawl message boards pretending to be kids ... )

If you are really interested in this line of police work, read up on Colin Stagg and exactly how many ways the judge ripped the police a new one over their "investigation" of him. (The Keystone Cops would have done better. And they don't exist).

But they weren't trying to lure a child into sexual activity.

No - even worse. They were pretending to be a child in order to lure an adult into sexual activity. It's hard to overstate how many levels of wrong there are going on there without resorting to some quite unpleasant words to describe the lack of brains anyone must have had (or more sinister motives ) to think that would ever fly.

As a rule (although not so much of late) laws in the UK are carefully drafted and have specific and limited scope for the actions of the police and state. So for example, if a police officer has to work with images of child sexual abuse, they are allowed by law to be in possession of the images which otherwise are illegal to possess. English and Welsh law doesn't really like the "but I'm police" approach to allowing the police to things forbidden to us. It prefers that any exceptions are written into the law. That way they are (in theory) transparent and clear to all. They can also be challenged, which is a fundamental part of our human rights - the right to redress.

Not really how much further to take this ... at the end of the day SCOTUK will decide and that will be that. Whatever you, I or anybody else thinks in this case will be moot. If people are unhappy with the outcome then - as previously noted - that's what voting is for.

What I will say - for the record again - is that there is not place in a civilised society for vigilantism. It's not healthy. And we should try to do all we can within the framework of being a liberal democracy to discourage it at every turn. Many people have died - in indescribable ways for all sorts of reasons - to get us to where we are today where private justice is not a thing at all. And we should look to carry that on forwards, and not backslide to the inevitable bloodfest that comes with frontier justice, posses, lynch mobs (and I feel nervous using that phrase given recent world events) and hanging judges.

I understand why it is wrong and unacceptable for vigilantes to set themselves up as police, judge, jury and executioner all rolled up in one.

Maybe I do lack brains and am unintelligent, but I am trying to learn and understand. I still do not understand why it is illegal simply to gather evidence this way. And I know I am not alone in that.

Maybe I do lack brains and am unintelligent, but I am trying to learn and understand. I still do not understand why it is illegal simply to gather evidence this way. And I know I am not alone in that.

Never let anyone accuse you of lacking brains for asking questions.

Your lack of understanding has nothing to do with intelligence. It's just that the law - and it's operation - are not easy subjects and there's a lot of background premises that underpin it that can make the end results seem a bit confusing or batshit.

The bottom line is that - for now at least - the courts in the UK all work in the open. Justice is done in public and we are all allowed to see it in action. You may not have got the answers you needed here, but you are free to carry on asking wherever you can. Which is another human right we all have. And should be grateful for. Even within living memory there have been places in the world where simply asking a question was a shortcut to a bullet in the head and a lime-slaked grave.

I'm outta here. (I'm too old for this shit )