Rapist informer went to 30 sex parties

A CHILD rapist who police paid £10,000 to spy on the Newcastle abuse gang went to 30 sex parties where he took drugs and had access to vulnerable girls, a court heard.

Police denied sending the informant, known as XY, to the ‘sessions’ where girls were abused, insisting he told them only where and when they were.

But a barrister told Newcastle Crown Court last October that XY – who has 53 previous convictions – had admitted attending 30 parties where he took drugs.

The lawyer suggested detectives tolerated his behaviour because of his ‘high value’ information.

At these parties girls were passed around ‘like commodities’ while ‘stupefied’ on alcohol and drugs. XY said: ‘I was chilling with the boys. I had to make it look like I was their friend.’

Defence barristers were trying to have the case against the gang thrown out because of XY’s involvement.

The BBC’s Inside Out programme reported that a defence barrister told the court: ‘This is a case where a rapist was put into the field where he would be with vulnerable young women when intoxicated. When intoxicated there have been some 30 occasions that have been disclosed by XY that he had been to parties.

‘The police were happy for him to be going to parties, taking drugs, being out of control because of the high value of the information. This is an affront to the public conscience.

‘He had committed a series of frauds, he was arrested for assaulting someone in a mosque, he attempted to incite a female in July 2015, he was arrested for breaching the sex offenders’ register.’

When asked this week if XY went to the parties, Northumbria Police Detective Superintendent Steve Barron said: ‘His instruction was to find out when they were to take place and prevent the abuse of young people.’

But Chief Constable Steve Ashman said: ‘Can I 100 per cent confirm that [XY did not go to the parties]? Possibly not.’ He claimed the ‘correct safety mechanisms’ had been in place.

Judge Penny Morland dismissed the application to throw out the case, but described XY’s evidence as ‘inherently unreliable’ and ‘clearly dishonest’.