THE Supreme Court rejected a Glasgow paedophile’s appeal after he claimed that his human rights were breached because he was caught after being targeted by social media vigilantes.

The justices said the “interests of children have priority over any interest a paedophile could have”.

It’s a ruling that could be significant for the many Facebook groups who go after child sex abusers.

Earlier this year, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS), said almost half of online grooming cases result from the activities of online child sexual abuse activist groups.

The highest court in the land was approached by Mark Sutherland, who was convicted in August 2018 of attempting to communicate indecently with an older child, and related offences.

The 38-year-old was snared by a vigilante group pretending to be a 13-year-old boy on the Grindr dating app.

He sent the pretend teenager explicit images and made arrangements to meet the boy for sex.

But Sutherland was in fact talking to a 48-year-old called Paul Devine.

When he turned up at Patrick Bus Station, instead of the teen, he was met by two other members of the Groom Resisters Scotland.

The confrontation was broadcast live on social media before police were phoned.

Sutherland – who had a previous conviction – was jailed for a total of two years.

He brought a Supreme Court challenge arguing that his right to a private life, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had been breached by the Groom Resisters.

Sutherland’s lawyer, Gordon Jackson QC, also argued that the evidence against him was obtained unlawfully.

Back in June Jackson argued: “The use of evidence obtained by the decoy amounts to an interference with the appellant’s right to privacy.

“There are lots of hunter organisations operating in Scotland and evidence from them has led to a number of investigations and prosecutions.

“This is a very large scale method of obtaining evidence for prosecution. The idea that the Crown is not in cahoots with it is something I disagree with.

“There is a degree of disquiet about these organisations which do not fit nicely around the way we do things.”

In the ruling, a panel of five justices unanimously dismissed Sutherland’s appeal and said the public prosecutor was entitled to introduce evidence obtained by a “decoy” at Sutherland’s trial to try to secure a conviction.

Announcing the court’s decision, Lord Sales said the court held there was “no interference with the accused’s rights” under Article 8 – which provides the right to a private life and correspondence.

He said: “It is implicit in Article 8 that in order to be protected the activity in question should be capable of respect within the scheme of values which the Convention on Human Rights exists to protect and promote.

“Children have rights under Article 8 as well. Under that provision, the state has a special responsibility to protect children against sexual exploitation by adults.

“This indicates that there is no protection under Article 8 for the communications by the accused in this case. 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.

“Since the state has to deter offences against children in order to protect their rights, the public prosecutor was entitled to introduce the evidence from the decoy at the trial of the accused to try to secure a conviction.”

Lord Sales added: “His communications were sent directly to the decoy. There was no prior relationship between the accused and the decoy from which an expectation of privacy could be said to arise.

“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.”