Child rapist paid £10k to spy on underage 'sex parties'

The recruitment emerges as 18 people are convicted of charges including rape, supplying drugs and inciting prostitution.

http://news.sky.com/story/child-rapist-paid-10k-to-act-as-police-informant-10981009

Im with the police on this one.
17 convictions,
over 250 victims on record.

A Job well done IMO.

Not sure that I support the police on this as it would seem to me to be open to potential abuse*. From reading those articles the testimonial evidence came from the victims and the convictions are a mix of admissions or found guilty,

A total of 17 men and one woman have been convicted of, or have admitted, charges that range from rape to inciting prostitution and supplying drugs, in a series of trials at

Newcastle Crown Court.

Police said they found 278 victims and over the course of four trials 20 young women gave evidence.

The barristers tried using the convicted child rapist informant "involvement" to get "more than 10" of the cases thrown out, one ponders why the convicted child rapist informant was even used as a witness** in court, or even used as an informant at all,

During pre-trial hearings, defence barristers argued the cases of more than 10 men should be thrown out due to the informant's involvement.

Robin Patton, representing one of the defendants, said the public's confidence in the justice system would be "substantially diminished" if they knew police had recruited "such an

individual".

David Hislop QC, representing another defendant, said XY had 13 previous convictions, including 26 offences of dishonesty.

Not defending the "convicted child rapist" who,

During the trials, it was heard that Northumbria Police recruited a sex offender years after he drugged an underage girl and invited another man to rape her after he had done

so.

But, not long after they was recruited this happened which would give the convicted child rapist the incentive to "perform" for the police,

It was heard that after his recruitment, the informant was arrested after a teenage girl claimed a man approached her and made an indecent proposition.

He was later told he would face no action after he took part in an identity parade.

The convicted child rapist informant made "lurid allegations" in court against the police,

During legal submissions, XY gave evidence to the court and made a series of lurid allegations against the police, including claims of racism and that he was asked to plant drugs.

He claimed he was recruited because he acted as an informal taxi driver for some of the defendants and "had to make it look like I was their friend".

And the judge dismissed this evidence in full,

Judge Penny Moreland rejected his evidence in its entirety, describing it as "inherently unreliable" and "clearly dishonest".

Do we know the full extent of how the convicted child rapist was utilised, what if they did plant drugs?, what is the context of "informal taxi driver"?. It seems a bit bizarre that the convicted child rapist informant, would go into court as a witness and make all of the allegations they did against the police when, they are not being convicted themselves and, essentially would just walk away with 10k.

According to the following link, part of the convicted child rapists "work" "included going to parties". How many parties to identify 278 victims? (presuming some of the victims had not come forward prior and the police did not act),

http://news.sky.com/story/police-informants-where-should-line-be-drawn-10980924

An informant in the Newcastle child sex case, a convicted child rapist, claimed during a pre-trial hearing that Northumbria Police had paid him £10,000 for information about the sexual exploitation of young girls.

He said part of his work included going to parties where police suspected girls would be intoxicated and sexually abused.

Perhaps if the police had listened to the 278 victims earlier then they would have not needed to hire a convicted child rapist to be an informant who, alleges they had an expanded role who, the police would have known that their extensive criminal past would make them a very weak witness. I guess we will never know now that the judge dismissed the convicted child rapist informants evidence.


20 million over 5 years,

Snouts and narks: The murky world of police informants

Police spent £20m in five years on payments to informants - but is using a convicted child rapist for information a step too far?

http://news.sky.com/story/police-informants-where-should-line-be-drawn-10980924

.....Peter Kirkham said: "I can't see any circumstances where somebody with his previous convictions would be approved as a participating informant to go to places where that sort of thing was happening.

"If the police had reasonable grounds to suspect what was going on they could not have allowed that to happen.....

278 victims for a conviction against 18 people (equivalent of 15 victims per convicted person).



http://news.sky.com/story/child-rapist-paid-10k-to-act-as-police-informant-10981009

Defending his force's use of an informant, Northumbria police chief constable Steve Ashman said he would "not rule out" using a convicted rapist to aid an investigation again.

He said "we have safeguarded vulnerable women and girls" and "dangerous men are behind bars" because of the information gathered using the convicted rapist.

Mr Ashman said: "We have to step into a murky, dangerous and shadowy world and the people who are going to provide us with that information which will protect victims - it's not the post-master or the district nurse."

He went on to say: "We were absolutely entitled to do what we did. The question that remains is a moral one: was it right to do that?"

Not sure that questioning the hiring of a convicted child rapist as an informant is really a moral question but, rather a practical/necessity question to the effectiveness of any information gained to then obtain a conviction. Which, in this case the hired convicted child rapist evidence was dismissed by the judge as "inherently unreliable" and "clearly dishonest".

Is it moral, ethical or even practical/necessity to hire a convicted child rapist with such a bad background that any evidence they would give would be questionable and, to then send them to parties where "police suspected girls would be intoxicated and sexually abused", be involved in some capacity at these parties, report back and, for the police to not act to protect those continuing victims until there was 278 victims?.

"we have safeguarded vulnerable women and girls". Really?.


* if the convicted child rapist, informant accusations were true and, the police did ask them to plant drugs or maybe do other things then, how easy would that be to do to anyone?.

** Analysis: The rules on police informants, 25 April 2009,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/apr/25/police-surveillance-sources-informants

There are now strict protocols for the use of grasses - or covert human intelligence sources, as they are known officially.

Since the bad old days of the 70s and 80s, when the system became discredited and the Crown Prosecution Service refused to touch any "supergrass" cases, the rules have been tightened. New policy guidelines were drawn up by the police and the CPS, and in 2005, with the introduction of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act, turning "Queen's evidence" - providing information on a gang or organisation as part of a prosecution case - was given an entire legal framework for extracting and using testimony.

The use of informants is monitored by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The act's provisions extend to Scotland in cases where a public authority authorises the use of a covert source.

The law is clear that a source has no licence to commit crime. They may, in an authorised operation, infiltrate a criminal conspiracy or be a party to the committing of criminal offences, within the limits recognised by case law and with the approval of the authorising officer. Acting beyond these limits could lead to prosecution. The need to protect the source cannot alter this.

An informant's incentive for giving up information on others is a potential reduction in a sentence and the prospect of payment. The detailed negotiations over reductions in sentences are carried out not by the police but the CPS, in order to distance officers from the process and reduce the risk of corruption.

Immunity from prosecution is granted rarely; a sentence reduction is the normal incentive.

All police forces recognise that covert human intelligence sources are valuable, but they also know that their use carries risks that need to be managed. The Association of Chief Police Officers and HM Customs' manual of standards for covert human intelligence, created in 2004, is held by a police force's director of intelligence, and provides the standards to be adhered to and guidance for all police and customs staff.

The protocol includes the necessity of recording all handling of an informant, using only trained staff, and ensuring that there is supervision of officers involved.

It also states that the system must be within the continual oversight of designated controllers, supervisors and other defined managers. The system must also be subject to analysis, security checking and constant review.

Queen's Evidence - Immunities, Undertakings and Agreements under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 := https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 := http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 := http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/contents

Informant Evidence: Tactics and Strategy, 4 March 2005 :=  http://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/articles/informant-evidence-tactics-and-strategy/

good points AB, looks like the informant could have protected some