Tough decisions

Where should police draw the line when they feel the need to use criminals convicted of some of the most heinous crimes as informants? Chris Marshall managed to instil a good deal of balance over this dilemma in his Inside Justice column (16 August). Most people would wince at the prospect of using a child rapist as a “snout” to help solve crimes.

But who can blame the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police for authorising a payment of £10,000 to an extremely unsavoury character if, in his judgment, it was necessary to help identify those intent on serial child abuse?

It is a judgment most of us would hate to have to make, but the issue goes right to the heart of how serious the country is about tackling not just abuse of youngsters but combating terrorism and gaining security for us all. The plain fact is that public protection in the modern world cannot simply rely on vigorous research and surveillance using methods that will never compromise the law of the land. Ensuring civil liberties is a noble ideal, and it is unpalatable for most of us to see them infringed. But in the broader scheme of things they can only be fully protected, and individuals made to feel safe if, on occasion, some unorthodox methods are used to unveil those determined to destroy those liberties.

Of course, in time there will need to be some scrutiny of decisions like the one made by the Northumbria Chief Constable. But even then, too detailed a level of scrutiny might play right into the hands of the criminals. Sometimes in public life there is a very good case for “in camera” probing of senior figures, particularly when security matters and the wretched business of busting gangs is involved. It is a matter all our politicians should give some attention to, for in the final analysis there is no freedom for those who have been bombed to oblivion and only a limited amount for those scarred for life by the actions of warped individuals with no respect for civilised standards.

BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes