Paedophile hunters confronted a man they claimed was hoping to meet a young girl in Mirfield.

A group known as Defending The Innocent launched a sting on a local man by pretending to be a 14-year-old girl online.

Their undercover vigilante operation was broadcast live on Facebook on Wednesday.

It showed the man waiting on the platform at Mirfield Railway Station when paedophile hunters arrive and reveal they were behind the online profile the man was allegedly messaging.

On the video they are seen to confront him and even have to defend him from a passer-by who tries to attack him when he discovers what’s going on.

Man detained at Mirfield rail station by paedophile hunters

The duo perform a citizen’s arrest and the police are called to take the suspected paedophile away.

A spokesperson for West Yorkshire Police confirmed they had attended the incident.

They said: “Police arrested a 51-year-old man on Back Station Road, Mirfield, on suspicion of causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity.”

The full encounter between the paedophile hunters and the man took almost half-an-hour.

The man behind the camera reveals he has “caught over 50” suspected paedophiles.

Mirfield Railway Station

He tells the suspect he is arresting him under Section 24a of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – in other words a citizen’s arrest.

They tell the man not to move and say they are prepared to “put him on the floor” if he tries to run as he is going to be “arrested for online grooming.”

The man pleads to go home and a scuffle breaks out.

While they are waiting for the police the men performing the citizen’s arrest begin to question the man about the things he is alleged to have done.

A few minutes later they have to protect the suspect from attack by an enraged passer-by.

After a 27 minute wait, police arrive to take the man away.

Last month the Examiner reported on a letter sent by West Yorkshire Police to paedophile hunters telling them to stop their sting operations.

Police said such actions could interfere with on-going police enquiries and that such “evidence” may not be admissible in court.