There’s an online site called Predator Catchers UK which can be found at https://predatorcatchersuk.wordpress.com
The purpose of the site is to publish conviction information on sex offenders based in the UK. The site copies and pastes data verbatim from local newspaper articles. Court report sections from the local press are then republished nationally via this site.
There is an associated Facebook page with the same name and operated by the same people. The content is identical. When a post is made on the main site it is replicated on the Facebook page.
Not that these people actually catch sex offenders, you understand. The name is a misdirection. They do however reproduce articles from the local press detailing the convictions of people who have. It is assumed that in reproducing this data they do not have an appropriate licence to reprint copyrighted materials (the copyright of course being invested in the newspaper publisher).
The site owners of Predator Catchers UK go to a great deal of trouble to avoid detection themselves. I can however reveal that the operators of the site are:
Richard Robinson & Sarah Elizabeth McClarence of 47 Truro Avenue, Sandall, Doncaster, South Yorkshire. DN ——
Why should this matter? There are three principal reasons:
1. The site hampers the rehabilitation of offenders
By offering a lasting home to newspaper reports which would otherwise be forgotten, or eventually buried in the online archive of the newspaper itself such sites as Predator Catchers UK actively work against the reforming efforts of the probation system. If the details of a person’s past offence are accessible for all to see then the associated problems of the conviction will remain for the offender. There can be no rehabilitation or moving on… Employment, personal circumstances and life chances remain limited and restricted. In this situation there is little incentive for an offender to change.
We generally accept the “paid their debt to society” element of criminal justice and the redemptive effects of such xxxx
2. The site exposes offenders and their families to the risk of vigilante attacks and violence
Again the issue here is with the accessibility of the data. Details of any past offending are permanently on display on the site. Sex offenders are more at risk of attack by “have a go heroes” by the nature of their offence. It also inclines prior offenders to be targeted for entrapment or by compensation-seekers for false allegations. This presents a threat to the liberty of the former offender and to the integrity of the criminal justice system (CJS).
Examples
3. Given the number of wrongful convictions presently before The Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD) the likelihood is that up to a third of the convictions presented on Predator Catchers UK are wrongful convictions.
Examples
4. The site reproduces any factual or legal errors reported in the original newspaper articles.
Neither Richard Robinson nor Sarah McClarence are present for the trial or sentencing of any of the sex offenders they list on Predator Catchers UK. They do not have access to the case papers or evidence. Thus factual errors in the original newspaper reports are reproduced on their site. This means they are also unaware of which cases they feature are sent to appeal and do not list these on their site either.
5. The associated Facebook page for Predator Catchers UK facilities online abuse.
While there’s no ability to make comments on the Predator Catchers UK site itself the associated Facebook page is different. This contains the same content cut and pasted from the main site but allows Fakebook – sorry Facebook – users to post comments regarding the persons whose details are posted on the main site. Some of these posts are the standard pile-ons that Twitter users will of course be familiar with. Some threaten violence in quite chilling terms. There’s a further concern here: that people who themselves claim to be victims can post indiscreet details that potentially prejudice any appeal proceedings.
Some further thoughts…
It’s curious how people who are quite happy to expose others and their families to a risk of attack and reprisals are unwilling themselves to be names publicly.
Richard Robinson and Sarah McClarence purposefully hid their identities behind a series of shell email accounts and further failed to inform their site host of their true identities. The critical mistake came when Robinson used McClarence’s mobile number with their email provider Verizon (Yahoo!) which allowed their details to be located on public databases in relation to case regarding large scale copyright theft.
Their deliberate efforts made towards anonymity show that they were fully aware of the potential risk to themselves from people featured on their site being disgruntled enough to take action against it, or indeed the relatives and friends of such people.
It has been the observation of this writer for some time that people to engage in the dubious tactic of attempting to catch predatory sex offenders are often persons who themselves cannot be said to have lived entirely satisfactory lives. That the frisson of righteousness that charges these people is unlikely to make up for the relatively low socio-economic status that bedevils them.
There are sufficient of these groups around the UK and the standard entrapment techniques they use are well enough established. The entrapment aspect is itself a grey area legally. Often the final “sting” involves the person subject to the entrapment attending at a particular address as arranged over such as internet messaging, the intent being that they would attend to commit further offending. The campaign group usually arrive mob-handed – for this is the perigee of their hobby – to witness the chance to physically restrain and verbally abuse the entrapped person while they await the presence of police.
I am honesty surprised that in relation to this activity no-one has yet been killed. The fury of the mob is of course well-documented. The self-aggrandising righteousness of people who set themselves up as the protectors of others will lead them to commit offences themselves in the pursuit of their activities. They are themselves of course at equal risk of violent assault from the person they are attempting to capture. Given that any sex offenders are by their nature suffering from mental illness (hence the offending in the first place…) this is a substantial risk.
A further risk comes from the infiltration of such groups by covert police surveillance: if the group is prepared to step over the line into direct illegality then they will naturally be a focus for covert surveillance.
Ultimately it comes down to the kind of society we wish to live in. The baseless Qanon conspiracy theories being promoted in the USA at the moment xxx Sex offenders and so-called predator catcher groups are
Legal Babble 