A CONVICTED Glasgow man has lost his battle in the supreme court against the use of evidence by paedophile hunters.

Mark Sutherland was snared after communicating with a member of an activist group, who he believed to be a 13-year-old boy.

He was caught by the group at Partick train station in August 2018. 

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.

READ MORE: Do you want to work for Rangers FC? The club is hiring for two positions based at Ibrox

And in a verdict given out this morning, the court has ruled the groups do not violate privacy. 

Delivering the Supreme Court’s ruling, 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 teenager, 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.

At a hearing in June, a panel of five justices, including the court's president Lord Reed, heard evidence from Sutherland's legal team that police and prosecutors gave "tacit encouragement" to such groups by often using the information they gather.

Gordon Jackson QC, representing Sutherland, told the court: "The police are aware that there a number of hunter organisations operating in Scotland and the UK and evidence submitted from these organisations has led to a number of criminal investigations and convictions."

There is "disquiet" about the work of such groups, he said.

READ MORE: Sick paedophile jailed after being snared at Partick Bus Station by vigilantes

The barrister argued that what hunter groups were likely to take from the fact that many cases were prosecuted was that, even if there were "reams of documentation", "at the end of the day, we're pretty sure if we carry on doing it, they'll prosecute".

Alison di Rollo QC, Solicitor General for the Crown Office, which opposed the appeal, argued that the criminal prosecution of sexual conduct between an adult and a child "does not engage" someone's right to privacy.

"There is no right to respect for such behaviour in a democratic society," she said.