Rape victims must hand over phone or police won't pursue crime

Many victims will not fight, but lie still in confusion and fear, not say no, or push a rapist off them.

Any real man will tell you that lying still is not consent and not an enjoyable 'interaction' as theres no interaction just aggression.

What's wrong about this is that text messages between a victim and her rapist would actually collapse a case, when any communication or activities or behaviours in the lead up to a rape are utterly irrelevant!

That's the point. The point is

She. Didn't. Want. Sex. It was rape!
Nothing else is relevant.
She might be having sex once a year, every day with strangers, but if she doesn't want sex its rape.

How is this still being talked around and blamed attributed to victims.

It works extremely well the justice system to shut victims down.

I've been on a number of twitter threads about this today. It's outrageous. Not least because, as number of posters have pointed out here, there's no real description or explanation of what the data is used for or how much of the data the police (and defence attorneys) can access.

For example, I hate it, but I can see how if the perpetrator claims that the victim liked it and sent text messages to that effect subsequently, it might be considered relevant information, with a desire to check on the victim and perpetrator's phone by police/prosecuting attorneys to see if this is true. But that's a very slim, specific use of data in a very specific situation.

And the problem is that we all know that when the phone data is downloaded and there is, for example, a history of the woman sexting with multiple men, then immediately it will be assumed that she is to blame for her rape.

It's also so frustrating that the main reason for the phone thing appears to be to check that the woman isn't lying. Because obviously, women lie about being raped ALL THE TIME. [sarcasm alert].

I have a little bit of sympathy for police wanting specific data to prove/disprove specific facts - eg location, post-incident commentary etc. But the threatening tone, the scope of what they can do and years and years of experience of how women who are raped are blamed make this completely unpalatable.

Only males could have come up with these intrusive and violating policies. I’m not sure, theft are a lot of Aunt Lydia’s about.

Given the patriarchal power and control, sexism and misogyny within which all females are forced to live in our society, maybe the way ahead is to remove all males from every aspect of every situation involving sexual offence against females? Leave it to the women to work through the justice process?

Only males could have come up with these intrusive and violating policies.

Right lads all you need to do now to prevent a rape conviction is to get the girl's number before, send her a few friendly texts to make sure you can say she was up for it and voila! you're free to rape with impunity!

The reason the Police are asking is because cases are collapsing a court.

There has to be a better way that requisitioning someone's personal data for indefinite purpose and indefinite time to be scrutinised and shared by persons unknown.

Surely, questioning any accused male or victim about their use of their technology is enough? Beyond that, is it not possible to interrogate any data with the victim or accused male in the room?

The reason the Police are asking is because cases are collapsing a court. The Police are in charge of disclosing "Any information that could undermine the prosecution". The vast majority of times their is nothing at all.

A text message between a victim and an offender won't collapse a case. It just needs disclosing to the defence. Not disclosing it will collapse the case. It will be seen as the Police withholding evidence.

The amount of hours and paperwork it takes to get a rape allegation to court is immense. The Police are trying to their best to get a conviction. Getting a case to court and having it fail on procedural technicalities is horrific for the victim.

Yes it is voluntary. And if you don't they are likely to drop the case. So no really voluntary if you want your report to mean anything.

*In that case, it was a man who was the victim.

Does that make a difference?*

I daresay his "knickers" would never be displayed in court and passed around jury members.

I daresay his "sexual and / or medical and / or social history" would not be used to try to assassinate his character in the face of the jury.

In that case, it was a man who was the victim.

Does that make a difference?

How is it voluntary

In the headlines and news ive heard it been said that if you dont hand it over they may drop the case

Thats not voluntary...thats bribery and coercion!

Which is ironic as the police are doing it

Agree Jacky. The court process isn't called the second rape for nothing.

It's voluntary.

Except that it isn't really, is it? Any Defence team will use any refusal to hand over personal technology in court against the victim, asking the jury to make of that what it will.

The whole process of rape and justice is a complete violation of females at every stage.

JackyHolyoake. It's voluntary.

The reasons behind it are because rape cases have collapsed due to disclosure issues.

A further thought: given there is a time limit of 24 hours [able to be extended to max 96 hours] imposed for holding a suspect for interrogation, surely there should also be a similar time limit imposed for holding victim's / suspect's technology for interrogation?

Datun yes. And was her 'character' dodgy when she was 4? or 15? or mid 20's? its all so horribly victim blaming. Can you only be raped if you have a 'good' character? wear the right clothes? have a nice 'clean' phone? Its all part of the same dynamic, imo.

Speaking from experience of being sexually assaulted by 3 boys from my school when I was 16, 10 years ago this coming Saturday in fact. I had to give the police my phone, so did the people I'd contacted after it happened (I was walking home alone, so after I text and phoned a my mum and a friend).

The CPS said they felt a jury might not find her a 'sympathetic witness due to her 'character'.

It's horrific that judging whether something is a crime is dependent upon the character of the victim, not the fucking perpetrator.

I'm sure the CPS are very familiar with people who will judge women unfavourably, on a purely misogynistic basis. But it's up to them to educate juries, specifically in rape cases if necessary. And judges.

It should be automatic. This is such a fucking low bar.

Fucking hell. But why would anyone actually hand their phone over? In that situation I would take the sd card out and "accidentally" drop my phone down the toilet rather than give it to the police to trawl thru. But then I wasn't brought up to comply with the authorities..!
And this:
Well that's a green light to any would be rapist. Start chatting someone up, get a bit flirty on the phone, and then rape them with impunity.
X2

A few years back I worked with a woman who had approached the Police about a blood relative Uncle raping her in his house when she was 15. He admitted it (but claimed she was willing). There came to light a letter between the Uncle and the Mother referring to the child complaining to the Mother of the Uncle assaulting her from the age of 4. The CPS chose not to prosecute as the girl then made some poor decisions about sexual relationships some years later (in her 20's which she had discussed with the Police when she reported him aged 30). The CPS said they felt a jury might not find her a 'sympathetic witness due to her 'character'.

Why would she even have been put on the stand when he admitted it?
Sex with his 15 year old niece ('willing' or not?)
I dont understand this???
It seems that the Victim can be at fault. Before, during and years after.

I worked for some time as a Counsellor for a charity supporting the teenage victims of CSA. They often asked me if they should 'go to the Police'. Internally, every time, I said: 'No' as I had so much experience of them being 'abused' a 2nd time by our so-called 'justice system'.

Yy datun
How is it a man can walk free as the admission of rape may not have been from him as someone else could have used his phone.

But messages from the victim confessing to it being a false allegation taken as truth?

Why couldn't that have been written by someone else too?

“Victims are very concerned that they are being asked for so much sensitive material – not only their phones, but also past medical history, their social services records and more,” said Waxman.''

Fucking hell. A victim's medical history is not responsible for a man raping her.
This absolutely is an attempt to victim blame, or frame women as false accusers.

@Honeydukes92
I agree with and support all that you have said.

The police investigation has to include all reasonable lines of enquiry that may prove or disprove a persons involvement in crime. They cannot ignore evidence that may be on a victim's phone, but this does not mean they are going to go rooting around through every message or photo on a phone on a fishing expedition to try and discredit a victim. However, if a phone is downloaded the CPS may disclose this unused material to the defence lawyers who may want to use it in court. The police can't ignore a victim's phone if there is likely to be evidence on there - this might include proving the crime. Like previously mentioned location data etc, or if the suspect raises a defence in interview, such a messages between the victim and the suspect, then the police cannot just ignore this, they have to look into it as a reasonable line of enquiry as it is their job. This applies to all cases where phones may contain evidence. not just rape.
Suspect's phones for rape cases will most likely always be seized for download under Section 19 of PACE as a matter of course, without their consent. I'm sure the article doesn't mention that.
I am speaking from experience of the legal and criminal justice system.

We have heard from at least one poster on this thread how location evidence gathered from the victims phone helped secure a conviction
In that case, it was a man who was the victim.

We have also heard of a horrific case where a women recorded her own rape and her accuser walked free, because he said it was consensual BDSM.

''The intrusive gathering of data about possible rape victims is unlawful and risks preventing them coming forward, according to London’s victims’ commissioner.''

''Claire Waxman from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) has written to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) saying victims were routinely being told their cases would be dropped unless they signed consent forms that gave defence lawyers and their alleged attacker access to intimate details of their lives that could be revealed in court.

“Victims are very concerned that they are being asked for so much sensitive material – not only their phones, but also past medical history, their social services records and more,” said Waxman.''

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/data-gathering-may-deny-victims-access-to-justice