Mark Sutherland appeal

[AsTreesWalking]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52896427I
Mark Sutherland has appealed his conviction for paedophile offences on grounds of invasion of privacy, because he was caught by a vigilante group.
In another case
"lawyers said the vigilantes' activities interfered with his rights under ECHR Article 8 and using their evidence in any trial would mean the court was acting "incompatibly" with those rights.
They also argued the use of information gathered covertly was unlawful under legislation designed to to ensure the surveillance of a person was properly regulated.
Those arguments were rejected by the sheriff, but he said by pretending falsely to be young children, the vigilantes had acted unlawfully.

The judgement, which will be issued later, will provide a definitive answer to the question of whether undercover vigilante activity is legal, and compatible with human rights, even of those who seek to abuse children."

This is worrying.
'according to HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) almost half of online grooming cases result from the activities of vigilante groups.'

What right was interfered with? The right to hurt children?

The judgement, which will be issued later, will provide a definitive answer to the question of whether undercover vigilante activity is legal, and compatible with human rights, even of those who seek to abuse children.

I hope the judge finds the children’s rights to safety outweigh the abuser’s rights to abuse in privacy.

Vigilantes should not have to do the police’s job. But since the police don’t do it, I’m grateful that vigilantes do.

“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.
"There is no right to respect for such behaviour in a democratic society," she said.”

Don’t arrange to meet up with children for sex & don’t have your “privacy” invaded ... I find it disturbing that there is a counter argument to this

Although Mark Sutherland was convicted by a jury at Glasgow Sheriff Court, 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".

They also argued the use of information gathered covertly was unlawful under legislation designed to to ensure the surveillance of a person was properly regulated.

Those arguments were rejected by the sheriff, but he said by pretending falsely to be young children, the vigilantes had acted unlawfully.

So is lying about your age on the internet fraud??

So is lying about your age on the internet fraud?

Technically, yes, given that it's intentional deception which causes either gain for the fraudster and/or loss for the target. Whether it's indictable is another question.

Given that EUHRA 8 covers the privacy of communications and actions within the home, it doesn't seem to apply in this case because there was no eavesdropping. While I see no benefit to protecting this predator, I do hope the judgement is carefully worded. A broad judgement could set a precedent which might allow malicious surveillance by stalkers to be used for criminal prosecution.