Understand Your Situation
'Sting' operations by vigilantes or police can lead to this serious charge. We challenge the evidence and the entrapment issues.
Defending 'Sting' Operations
This charge (Section 14) applies if you arrange to meet someone you believe is a child for sexual activity. Frequently, the 'child' is actually an adult decoy or a police officer.
We aggressively challenge the evidence provided by 'Paedophile Hunters'. Vigilante evidence is often obtained illegally, unethically, or is tampered with. We demand full disclosure of the entire chat log, not just the edited highlights. If the decoy initiated the sexual nature of the chat, we argue that you were induced into the offence (Entrapment arguments), which can lead to exclusion of evidence.
Caught by Hunters?
Vigilante evidence is often flawed. We challenge its admissibility.
Plan Your Defence
Factual Impossibility
It is no defence that the child didn't exist (e.g., it was a police officer). However, the prosecution must prove you *intended* to commit a specific sexual offence.
We analyse the chat for ambiguity. If your intent was meeting for a non-sexual purpose, or if the sexual intent was conditional, the charge of 'Arranging' may not be met. We fight to prove that your actions did not cross the line into criminal liability.
Undercover Police?
Entrapment? We investigate if you were led into the crime.
Legal Aid Availability
For many criminal matters, from police station interviews to Crown Court trials, public funding (Legal Aid) may be available to cover your legal costs.
Eligibility is determined by the seriousness of the case and, in some instances, a means assessment. Our team will conduct an immediate, confidential assessment of your eligibility to ensure that financial constraints do not stand in the way of a robust defence.
