It was brought by Mark Sutherland, who was caught by Groom Resisters Scotland.<\/p>\n
Sutherland was subsequently convicted of attempting to communicate indecently with an older child.<\/p>\n
He was appealing his conviction on the grounds that the covert investigation – and the use of the resulting evidence by the authorities – breached his human right for his correspondence to be private.<\/p>\n
‘Children have priority’<\/h2>\n
The UK’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that the interests of children have priority over any interest a paedophile could have in being allowed to engage in criminal conduct.<\/p>\n
Lord Sales delivered the judgement via video link, stating that the panel of five justices found there was no interference with the accused’s rights under Article 8.<\/p>\n
He said this was for two reasons – the first being that “the activity in question should be capable of respect”, and that children also have rights.<\/p>\n
Lord Sales said the state had “a special responsibility to protect children against sexual exploitation by adults”.<\/p>\n
“This indicates that there is no protection under Article 8 for the communications by the accused in this case.” he said.<\/p>\n
“The interests of children have priority over any interest a paedophile could have in being allowed to engage in the criminal conduct in issue here.”.<\/p>\n
The state must “deter offences against children” and so prosecutors were entitled to use the evidence gathered by Groom Resisters Scotland to secure a conviction.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Secondly, he said, Sutherland had “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in the circumstances.<\/p>\n “There was no prior relationship between the accused [Sutherland] and the decoy [from Groom Resisters Scotland] from which an expectation of privacy could be said to arise.<\/p>\n “In addition, the accused believed he was communicating with a 13-year-old child, and it was foreseeable that a child of that age might share any worrying communications with an adult”, Lord Sales said.<\/p>\n He added that prosecutors had “no additional positive obligation” to protect Sutherland’s interests in any way that would prevent the prosecutor making use of the evidence to prosecute the crimes.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mark Sutherland brought the case after being\u00a0caught by a group of “paedophile hunters” called Groom Resisters Scotland<\/a>.<\/p>\n In 2018, Sutherland, 37, matched up on Grindr with someone who, when he communicated with them, claimed to be a 13-year-old boy.<\/p>\n Sutherland sent explicit pictures and made arrangements to meet the “boy”. It was in fact 48-year-old Paul Devine.<\/p>\n When Sutherland turned up at Partick Bus Station in Glasgow, he found two members of Mr Devine’s group.<\/p>\n The group confronted Sutherland at the arranged meeting, and waited with him until police arrived. They broadcast the encounter on social media and handed the evidence to the authorities.<\/p>\n Sutherland was convicted in August 2018 of attempting to communicate indecently with an older child, and related offences, and\u00a0jailed for two years<\/a>.<\/p>\n He had previously been jailed for sending explicit pictures to a 12-year-old boy.<\/p>\n At a hearing in June, Sutherland’s lawyers\u00a0argued in court that his right to a private life had been breached<\/a>.<\/p>\n This right is enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and states that everyone has the right to respect for his or her private life and correspondence.<\/p>\n His lawyer, Gordon Jackson QC, argued: “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.”<\/p>\n There is “disquiet” about the work of such groups, and police and prosecutors give them “tacit encouragement”, Mr Jackson said.<\/p>\n He argued that “a huge number” of cases were prosecuted on the basis of information from these organisations.<\/p>\n According to HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS), almost half of online grooming cases result from the activities of vigilante groups.<\/p>\n The inspectorate said these groups are unregulated and untrained, and in its\u00a0report in February 2020<\/a>\u00a0said: “A more robust proactive capability on the part of Police Scotland would reduce the opportunities for these groups to operate.”<\/p>\n Source: bbc.co.uk<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"Lord](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/news\/624\/cpsprodpb\/14B2B\/production\/_113397748_paedophilesupremecourt1507.01_frame_13324.png\")
<\/span>What was Mark Sutherland convicted of?<\/h2>\n
![\"Partick](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/news\/624\/cpsprodpb\/00A2\/production\/_103726100_mediaitem103726097.jpg\")
<\/span>What did Sutherland’s lawyers argue?<\/h2>\n