An innocent man was arrested at an Asda supermarket in Manchester, after a sting operation by paedophile hunters went wrong, probing an investigation ordered by a judge to find out the details of what exactly happened.
Paedophile hunters were meant to arrest Michael Chapman, 39, after he had sent sexualised messages to five social media “decoy” accounts believed to be operated by teenage girls.
After he suggested meeting up at an Asda in Salford, members of the unnamed vigilante group picked out a man believed to be Chapman.
The man was arrested after being “misidentified”, despite being entirely innocent.
Judge Sarah Johnston at Manchester Crown Court said: “It seems to me to be a situation which is going to arise again, if steps are not taken to ensure that these cases are investigated properly by those who are responsible for such investigations.”
Manchester Evening News reported the judge was not “ascribing blame” but wanted to know if an investigation had been launched to figure out what caused the mishap.
Michael Chapman, however, was arrested two weeks later on December 19. Prosecutors at Manchester Crown Court told how Chapman had been messaging five “decoy” accounts on social media over a six-week period between November 2020 and January 2021.
Chapman had sent videos of himself masturbating to girls he had believed to be 13 or 14 years of age.
The man pleaded guilty to five counts of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, three counts of causing a child to watch a sexual act, and two counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
Defending, Ellen Shaw said Chapman had no previous convictions. She also said he had not committed any further offences following the delays – which were not his fault.
Mr Chapman was sentenced to two years, suspended for two years, and ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work and complete 15 rehabilitation activity requirement days.
He will also carry out a sexual offences program, which the judge believed was “the surest way of ensuring that conduct is not repeated”.
