A judge has refused to allow a charge to proceed against a man detained following an online sexual hunter sting, despite being brought to court within 24 hours of arrest.
The former accused, who cannot now be named as he is no longer charged, was alleged to have attempted to sexually communicate with a child on November 20.
A police officer aware of the facts of the case told Dungannon Magistrates’ Court the charge could be connected.
He explained at approximately 9pm on the night in question police were tasked to attend an address where a child online protection group disclosed the former accused had been engaging in sexual communication with what he believed was a 12-year-old schoolgirl but was in fact a decoy.
Evidence was provided of messages exchanged over a number of days, some of which were of a sexually explicit nature, including seeking images of her in her school uniform.
Despite the decoy stressing they were 12-years-old on at least four occasions, the former accused allegedly persisted in stating he wanted to have sex and sent an image of himself naked.
On arrival at the scene, police met with the group spokesperson who “provided a folder containing screenshots of messages and a USB stick containing digital copies”.
The group’s details were collated and the former accused was arrested.
He provided ‘no comment’ responses to all questions during interview.
When the officer began setting out reasons for objecting to bail District Judge Francis Rafferty enquired if there was any challenge against the connection to the charge, leading the defence to ask if statements had been provided by the group.
The officer replied: “They have indicated there will definitely be a statement forthcoming, however, I’m unaware of what progress has been made on that so far.”
He further confirmed investigations have to be carried out as to who owned the phone from which the former accused allegedly communicated.
However, “the phone was seized and the password provided. It is unclear which social media platforms were used but it appears to have been WhatsApp and another called ‘Happn”.
Judge Rafferty remarked: “Hypothetically, this group could have turned up at the house next door and made these allegations against anyone. If police arrived and had neither a statement from the group or indeed anything of linkage between these comments but a phone or an Xbox you’d be in exactly the same position you are now.”
The officer responded: “Not necessarily. There is a photograph of a WhatsApp profile image and I’m satisfied (the former accused) is the person in question.”
The defence said: “The use of a photograph doesn’t necessarily prove identity and in fact it could be used as a distraction.”
Judge Rafferty said as a decoy was involved so there is no forensic link and, “there’s nothing evidenced by statements other than people turning up at the door and saying (the former accused) has done these things. There’s also one photograph and while the officer takes the view he it’s him and it may be, but absent anything greater than that. I don’t see how the charge is made out.”
The officer commented: “I take on board what has been said but the (former) defendant was at his address.”
But the judge retorted: “What do you have other than their say-so? I’m not satisfied with the material before the court.”
He refused to let the charge proceed and ordered the former accused to be released.
It’s unclear if that is the end of the matter or if charges may come in time.
Most read today
Operator’s Licence Notice
