A London man who gained notoriety as a self-styled "creeper hunter" is facing additional legal consequences after allegedly violating the terms of his release, according to local authorities.
London Police Service officials confirmed that 31-year-old Justin Wall has been charged with two counts of failing to comply with a release order. The new charges stem from incidents that occurred mere weeks after his initial arrest in late January.
From Hunter to Hunted: A Legal Reversal
The case took an ironic turn when Wall, who previously positioned himself as a community vigilante targeting potential predators, became the subject of police investigation himself. His original charges included criminal harassment and uttering threats.
Court documents reveal that Wall's release conditions specifically prohibited him from:
- Possessing any weapons
 - Communicating with certain individuals
 - Attending specific locations within the city
 
Police Express Concern Over Repeat Behavior
"When individuals fail to adhere to their release conditions, it undermines the judicial process and creates potential risks to community safety," stated a London Police Service representative. The service emphasized that compliance with court-ordered restrictions is taken seriously.
The alleged breaches occurred despite Wall having been released on a $2,000 bond following his January arrest. Legal experts note that breach of conditions charges can carry significant consequences, including potential revocation of bail.
Growing Phenomenon of Vigilante Justice
This case highlights the controversial trend of civilian-led "predator hunting" groups operating across Ontario. While participants claim to be protecting communities, law enforcement agencies consistently warn that such activities can:
- Interfere with official investigations
 - Create dangerous situations
 - Result in false accusations
 - Lead to legal consequences for the hunters themselves
 
Wall is scheduled to appear in London court on March 26 to answer to the new charges. The outcome of this case may set important precedents for how similar vigilante activities are handled within Ontario's legal system.