The court found that the use of an undercover police officer in the case did not constitute entrapment as defined by the European Court of Human Rights' case law.

"Therefore, the use of evidence obtained through covert investigative measures does not raise an issue under Article 6, Paragraph 1. Consequently, there was no violation of Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Convention in connection with the applicant's claim that he was incited to commit a crime," the court stated.

The court emphasized that organizing a covert operation alone does not imply an intention to provoke the applicant or encourage him to commit acts he otherwise would not have committed. Such operations are inherently designed to collect information and evidence and typically involve the use of false identities.

The court further highlighted that the police actions — creating a user profile in a chatroom, logging in and communicating with others via private messages — were not inherently illegal and did not require the other party to act unlawfully. It drew a comparison to cases in which an undercover officer contacts a suspect with an offer to purchase illegal drugs.

The court rejected the applicant's claim that the username "Marleen12" amounted to unlawful enticement. Although the name could suggest the person's age (just as the applicant's own username "m41tln" hinted at his), it did not in any way prompt or invite sexual conversation.

The court also noted that the applicant had full autonomy in deciding whether to communicate with "Marleen12" — either via private messages or in public chat — and to choose the subjects of those conversations. He retained that freedom even after "Marleen12" stated in their very first conversation on October 8, 2019, that she was 12 years old. Nevertheless, the applicant continued to engage with "Marleen12" from October 8 through December 8, 2019 and, as noted by Estonian courts, it was always the applicant who initiated the conversations and introduced sexual topics. He did not challenge the content of these conversations in Estonian courts or at the European Court, nor did he claim that the undercover officer had incited sexual discussions.

Taking all of this into account, the court concluded that the undercover officer maintained the required passive role throughout the operation and the applicant was neither directly nor indirectly pressured to commit a crime.

Peeter Helme's conviction for attempted sexual enticement of a minor became final on August 17, 2021, after the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by his defense attorney, Raul Ainla. The Tallinn Circuit Court's ruling, which upheld an earlier decision by Harju District Court, had already entered into force on June 10.

In June, the circuit court rejected the defense's appeal and upheld Helme's conditional sentence of one year, three months and 28 days, with a two-year probationary period. During that time, the court required Helme to comply with supervisory conditions, including participation in a social program aimed at preventing further offenses of the type for which he was convicted.

The circuit court agreed with the reasoning and conclusions of the county court, finding, among other things, that the lower court had correctly established that Helme acted with direct intent to elicit sexual interest from a child.

The Prosecutor's Office first brought suspicions of sexually enticing a minor against Helme in November of 2019. He visited the chatroom "Armastuse saal" and exchanged in conversations he himself described as "lewd" with the user "Marleen12" behind which was a police officer masquerading as a minor. Helme maintained at the time that he believed the other user was also an adult.

Helme worked as the editor-in-chief of daily Postimees from April 3 to November 1. He resigned after the editorial staff at Postimees voiced lack of confidence in him.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!