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

I wonder if they'll ask the victims of burglaries to do the same. In case, you know, it might have been an insurance scam

If the defendant in a burglary case raised the defense that the home-owner had agreed he could take his belongings, then I would have thought so. [especially if there is no damage to the property or physical evidence of a forced entry]. If you were the investigating officer, wouldn't you look further into it ?

I wonder if they'll ask the victims of burglaries to do the same. In case, you know, it might have been an insurance scam.

Sadly, I have heard young women say the same thing. How did things regress so much?

Yup,. since my post I have seen a fair few women say this too. Its just baffling, when men are like 15x more likely to be flalsely convicted of murder than of rape. And hundreds of times more likely to BE raped than be falsely accused.

Yet always so much focus on false accusations, when studies have found a great number of 6 men per year are arrested on a false accusation, and 2 see a court room. I mean, yeah its bad for those 6, but..is it really something to be calling an endemic, and something that 'ruins many lives'..meanwhile, rape actually does ruin many many lives but is almost always the victims fault. Unless the victim is a man, in which case they are generally believed without question. Its vile.

And its not just uppity women here who think this is wrong. Max Hill QC, head of the CPS also think this policy is wrong and said it wouldn't happen

Here is a link to a tweet from Max Hill re: the position of the CPS.

twitter.com/MaxHillQC/status/1123696286035775488

Its the rush to be Cool Girl.

Similar to what a PP said i think sooner or later women will go on some kind of sex/relationship strike and just withdraw from dating.

The amount of men I have seen saying this is great 'because false accusations ruin lives and are very common' is disgusting. As is this decision. Imagine if you had to hand over phones or laptops or whatever when reporting say..a burglary. Just incase you had been planning to do it as an insurance scam. With assaults, because you could have planned it yourself or something. There would be absolute hell on.

I take the garment being notorious for moving as to mean down - dropping them.

Ugh. I hadn't seen it like that. I was a bit bemused about what they actually meant.

I take the garment being notorious for moving as to mean down - dropping them.

Thongs don't tend to move about as they're tight and usually wedged between your bum cheeks.

Looked at the complexity thing.

"vThong
The most intense focus of the court’s attention was on the alleged victim’s underwear – a thong – and the pattern of blood stains on it, and how those marks were caused.

“This type of garment is notorious, is it not, for moving?” Brendan Kelly QC, Mr Jackson’s barrister, asked the forensics officer.

To a ripple of uneasy laughter in the public gallery, she replied that she would assume so, but it was not her area of expertise.

Such was the complexity of the blood marks on the garment, it was determined that the exhibit itself should be brought back before the court, rather than relying on diagrams and photographs."

Note the joke from the defence barrister.

My assumption on reading that is that it is the defence who argued the bloodstains were "complex" and so the knickers needed to be seen in real life. Rather then the defence. Happy to be corrected but the article doesn't say who requested, and from reading that I'd imagine the defence.

That "joke" I mean fucking disgusting.

The bottom line with this the reason the defence always works hard to get clothes / underwear/ past behaviour admissable (if that's the word) is because that is what is so pivotal in lots of cases.
Essentially

Look at these knickers
She's a bit of a tart
Probably up for it
If not well she led him on what did she expect look at those pants
Is it right to ruin the life of a man on the word of some tart???

They do not say that out loud,
In so many words
But that is the hook they need.
Misogyny runs deep and the desire to protect "good men" or even not good but talented / successful men.

Whole thing's a joke.

It's obvious how the content of womens phones will be used.

sawdustformypony
i.e. relevant information that is not used by the CPS, but which may undermine the CPS's case or support the defense case, is disclosed.
Because there have been problems with disclosure in the past it's pretty safe to say the police will over disclose rather than under disclose.
This is why there needs to be a root and branch review of the prosecution of rape. We know there are problems with the rough sex defence for example. It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that a conversation about 50 shades with a friend could be manipulated by the defence into a predilection for rough sex.
I really think HH knows enough about this subject and unintended consequences not to mislead anyone.

Elizabeth O'Connell asked the jurors to take into account the underwear the teenager was wearing

How does Elizabeth O'Connell still have a job after such sexism in court and pro rape statements.

It doesn’t help that rags like the Daily Mail have without fail a story on their homepage about a woman caught lying about rape every day when these make up less than 1% of cases

Same on MN Hithere12

You can't open your mouth about rape here without the anecdoters plopping their DS falsely accused, girls/women lie, etc.

All very helpful in the massive trend of overwhelming abuses against women and girls, not!

sawdust

The fact that the defence used the underwear as a means to discredit the victim, is illustrating my point, that underwear, which is irrelevant, is used to discredit a victim.

The defence then decided to use that opporunity to persuade the jury that a certain type of underwear can be proof of consent, whatever the victim herself might be saying:

"In her final address, defense barrister Elizabeth O'Connell asked the jurors to take into account the underwear the teenager was wearing.

"Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front," she said, according to the Irish Examiner."

According to the rules that you quoted, the defence can use material from the victim that the prosecution deem completely irrelevant. Like knickers.

But you appear to be saying that the rules are fair.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this?

I thought the CPS was content with a diagram, but the defence insisted on the underwear, because they were 'sexy'.

I'm merely referring back to the post by Erythronium yesterday at 15:21 where he or she pasted in this...

"Such was the complexity of the blood marks on the garment, it was determined that the exhibit itself should be brought back before the court, rather than relying on diagrams and photographs."

As I mentioned in my posts at the time, I know little of the case but have no reason to cast any doubt on it.

As I understand it from an earlier post see above, the evidence of the knickers was probably introduced by the CPS to show the pattern of blood staining.

I thought the CPS was content with a diagram, but the defence insisted on the underwear, because they were 'sexy'.

Which is what I'm talking about.

It doesn’t help that rags like the Daily Mail have without fail a story on their homepage about a woman caught lying about rape every day when these make up less than 1% of cases.

This cherry picking leads it to seem like a much more prevalent issue which then leads to juries not believing women. They have this rapey agenda and it’s disgusting.

I tweet at them all the time about this and have emailed them. Julie Bindell did a good Guardian article about this.

Id urge more people here to contact DM and complain about this because it’s absolutely disgusting the biggest news paper in the world is misrepresenting this issue is for some kind of sick agenda. This kind of thing trickles down where victims aren’t believed.

I raise it as a possibility. You'd think she would have read the document prior to an address to the house.

You are accusing harriet harman of misleading parliament?

That is an extremely strong accusation.

I'm not quite getting this sawdust. Does the victim's knickers come into this category?

As I understand it from an earlier post see above, the evidence of the knickers was probably introduced by the CPS to show the pattern of blood staining.

i.e. relevant information that is not used by the CPS, but which may undermine the CPS's case or support the defense case, is disclosed.

I'm not quite getting this sawdust. Does the victim's knickers come into this category?

From what she says the form says info will be given to the suspect

But what she doesn't say, - misleading Parliament ?? - is that the form states that only unused material - i.e. relevant information that is not used by the CPS, but which may undermine the CPS's case or support the defense case, is disclosed.

The only organisation that is investigating crime is the Police. IF the Police discover that there is such evidence as above, then it must be right that it is disclosed to the defence.

Harriet Harman has raised in Hoc
twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/1122944019389145089?s=09
From what she says the form says info will be given to the suspect.

Mandatorymongoose I am so sorry, I hope your daughter and your family are coping ok.

This thread, including the contribution from a police officer, just make me glad I did not report my rape and I would not do so if it happened again. The system is not fit for purpose, it does not care about victims and does everything possible to give men who rape a way to get out of being held responsible. After Ched Evans, I knew I would never report any future assault and I would advise friends and family not to either.