PAEOPHILE hunter groups - who have played a part in bringing a number of men in Thurrock to court over recent years, can carry on after the decision of a Supreme Court appeal was announced.

The UK's top court delivered its verdict after considering an appeal from a man who was targeted by so-called 'paedophile hunters' who impersonate children in online chatrooms in order to expose people who they consider to be sexual predators.

The man appealed against his conviction for grooming offences on the basis that the covert investigation (and the use of the resulting evidence by the prosecuting authorities) breached his right to private life.

Mark Sutherland, 37, who was caught by a group called Groom Resisters Scotland, was convicted in August 2018 of attempting to communicate indecently with an older child, and related offences, and jailed for two years.

He had previously been jailed for sending explicit pictures to a 12-year-old boy.

He argues that his conviction came about because of the actions of unregulated vigilantes, and not the police.

University of East Anglia lecturer in criminal law, Dr Joe Purshouse, recently published a paper arguing that police and lawmakers have failed to deal appropriately with these groups.

Dr Purshouse says: "This case could have a transformative impact on how vigilante 'paedophile hunter' groups are regulated. If the appeal succeeds, police forces may have to carefully rethink their relationships with these vigilante groups.

"Currently these groups are free to operate outside of the regulations that undercover police officers have to adhere to when conducting similar investigations into online grooming. The police and prosecuting authorities often rely on evidence gathered by paedophile hunters to mount criminal prosecutions for grooming offences.

"While some of these groups have helped secure convictions against dangerous offenders, many 'paedophile hunter' sting operations have gone horribly wrong, and some groups use vigilante style tactics that pose unacceptable dangers to themselves and the individuals they target."

A number of men in Thurrock have been brought to court by paedophile hunters.

Among them were a Horndon on the Hill man jailed for two years after talking to a girl he believed to be 14 on the social media site Skout. He had been entrapped by paedophile hunting group Cobra UK had set up a fake profile of a 14-year-old girl called Zara Jones. Cobra UK attended his home after finding his address online, where they then called the police.

The 'Innocent Voices' network used a live social media sting earlier this year to deliver a man from South Ockendon to police for sexually grooming children aged 12 and 13 – who were in fact paedophile hunter set-ups.

And another South Ockendon man was caught by vigilante group Paedophile Hunters who pretended to be a 13-year-old girl and started speaking to him on the social media app Kik. His apprehension was published on Facebook by another vigilante group 'The Soloceptors'.

And on a live Facebook broadcast another group of local paedophile turned up at the home home a Chafford Hundred man and took him outside to face cameras where he admitted his offences - and only then were the police called.

All the men pleaded guilty to their crime in court and were jailed.

When the outcome of Sutherland's appeal was made, it was welcomed by the hunter groups who do not violate the right to privacy, the Supreme Court ruled while dismissing the appeal.

Delivering the Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday 915 July), Lord Sales said the appeal had been "unanimously dismissed".

"There was no interference with the accused's rights under Article 8," he added.

Lord Sales said Sutherland believed he was communicating with a 13-year-old boy, and had no "reasonable expectation of privacy" because a child could tell an adult.

He added that authorities have a "special responsibility to protect children against sexual exploitation by adults" and that overrides the right to privacy for such "reprehensible" communications.

"The interests of children have priority over any interest a paedophile could have in being allowed to engage in criminal conduct," the judgment added.