A council worker was nearly put behind bars for giving a sex offender's address to paedophile hunters, which resulted in an angry mob being sent to his house.
Chloe Carr, a 23-year-old customer service advisor for Hull City Council, admitted to unlawfully disclosing private data to an online website without consent after giving the unnamed offender's details to an anti-paedophile group.
However, she denied the charge of misconduct in public office and abusing the public's trust and disclosing confidential and personal data.
Advert
Back in June 2020, one of Carr's colleagues revealed she'd been contacted by the offender asking for a food parcel to be sent to him as he'd been placed in emergency accommodation near a school to protect him, prosecutor Charlotte Baines told Hull Crown Court, Hull Live reported.
Carr, who was heavily pregnant at the time, then forwarded this address to the paedophile hunters, but asked to remain anonymous.
"This can't come back to me due to my work," she wrote in a message, the court heart, also telling them he 'deserves all he gets'.
Baines said: "The defendant made it abundantly clear that she worked for Hull City Council and the information needed to be kept anonymous."
Advert
The offender then phoned the police after a 30-strong mob turned up at his home, warning him to 'get out now or they would kill him and burn down the property', Baines said.
After he was moved, the vigilante group thanked Carr, to which she wrote: "I am so happy. He is bloody awful. Happy to have helped everyone."
Police later honed in on Carr and seized her laptops, where her participation in the chats was confirmed.
Speaking to police, she said she was 'quite angry because she was pregnant', even though she was aware of her wrongdoing.
"She was kicked out of the works chat. She wasn't allowed to return to work, one assumes," Baines said.
Advert
Judge Mark Bury said the incident may have been prevented if Carr hadn't been working from home, that way she could have been under closer supervision.
While Carr initially faced prison time under a serious misconduct in public office offence, a 'thorough review by a number of different people' meant the maximum penalty she could face was a fine.
Judge Bury said: "You are very lucky about that. The offence that you have committed is, in my view, a very serious one that would have carried a sentence of imprisonment. I would have locked her up.
"This is not a public service at all. They had done their punishment. It wasn't for you to give their details out.
Advert
"I hope this has been a lesson. If you work in the public sector again, you just have to remember that you have a grave responsibility with public details. You thought you were helping. You were not."
Carr was handed a £500 fine to be paid in £50 monthly instalments.
Cameron Frew