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

Because I have no idea what other forces do. So I won’t assume they do the same as we do.

I have read the entire thread, but as per normal on mumsnet the experiences of a trained sexual offence police officer are rarely welcomed on these threads so I will bow out.

I didn't ignore it. I thought it was naively sweet that you were 'hopeful' other forces did the same. And I think you should probably read the rest of the thread and click on the links to Jessica Eaton's article to understand why your reassurances arent very reassuring at all.

But the benefit issue isn’t the polices concern, is it? Did you conveniently ignore the rest of my post where I said we give our victims a phone so they have communication?

Yeah, nothing like the police represention on the thread saying 'Not our problem'. Farking 'ell. I'm so full of optimism that 'hopefully' the police will do the right thing. That's definitely the best basis for justice.

Where is the sexism in removing phones? It happens in many serious enquiries, not just rape.

The consequences of losing your phone wrt benefits access is a very good example of the intersection of sexism and other factors of unfair discrimination and oppression.

helena Whilst that is unfortunate that’s not the polices issue.

And my force will buy a sexual assault victim a cheap payg to endure they have communications so that will remove that concern.

Hopefully all forces do that.

I agree with the consensus here. Would also like to make a small point that if the victim is claiming something like Universal Credit taking her phone could mean other serious repercussions like a benefit sanction.

Some posters have asked if messages on a handset have ever assisted in a conviction. The first rape I investigated had exactly that situation.

He admitted in an online conversation and I was able to prove he could have been the only person that sent that message.

Would he have been convicted without that? That’s impossible to say.

Oh and it came from her phone which she gave me when I asked for it. I can’t for the life of me remember if we had his phone or if the info had been deleted but either way, we got the info from her phone.

And officers in my force are not trained or authorised to interrogate phones so they are sent for digital download which takes month and months and months. I also have to submit the request specifically saying what I am looking for and why so it’s not a case of searching through her internet history or checking her photos from last year. We aren’t allowed to have a fishing trip and our enquiry has to be proportionate and justifications.

And suspects aren’t stupid, if they have any inkling we are coming for the, then the phone is long gone.

Perhaps it's also time a defendants previous convictions were admissible in court as well.

This woman will have to trawl for evidence that might be used to affect juries who think that skirts are relevant to the reason why a man is raping a woman.

That's your version of it, but this is what the laws demands of the CPS. This is s.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure & Investigations Act 1996. The prosecution must “… disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused”.

To me that sounds as if an effort is being made to conduct a fair trial.

I love the repeatedly naive assumption that the police are just a completely neutral evidence gathering organisation with no ignorance or bias.

Given the evidence of their continued bias and incompetence as a wider organization that has actually led to women being killed by their partners due to the inaction of the police, and the involvement of the police officers themselves in dubious undercover activities, I'd say the assumption of police neutrality and professional evidence gathering that doesn't negatively impact the chances of raped and abused women getting justice pretty ironic, and not in an Alanis kind of way.

As a pp said: if there are any texts to the effect that the victim puts on a brave face, that will be used against her. In every other context this is unthinkable.

I'm going to make another point.
If you are on benefits, having your phone confiscated is going to cause you serious problems. Having a second phone wont help because all your mobile gadgets are confiscated.

Well said Datun

I lost friends, if you can call them that, because I reported the mutual "friend" that assaulted me in my sleep. They tried to claim that it was my fault for leading him on... i.e. by being friends with him when I knew he fancied me (not that I need to include this FYI, but I had made it clear verbally and via text several times I was happy with my BF and was not interested in him at all!)

''Mother of teenager who took her own life after rape trial 'appalled' by girl's thong being used against her in Irish case''

''Thousands of women have shared images of their underwear on Twitter, with the hashtag #this is not consent, following a case in Cork in which a lawyer used an alleged rape victim’s choice of underwear to argue that she consented to sex.''

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/19/mother-teenager-took-life-rape-trial-appalled-girls-thong-used/

Why wouldn't those people with their giant mansion set in the middle of beautiful rolling acres see that it was an open invitation for robbers to come in and steal their priceless art collection?

The words "What was she wearing?" spoken to a jury should instantly sound like "I'm a sexist arse who has no case".

Likewise any discussion of a woman's past sex life, sexual habits, previous consent, and anything else that has zero affect on a man's decision to rape her.

That's some mad (and slightly pornographic) speculation you've got going on there sawdust. Victims' underwear is often held up in court because it contains forensic evidence, as happened in the Ulster trial:

"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."

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-olding-s-semen-found-on-alleged-victim-s-clothes-1.3400684

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."

edition.cnn.com/2018/11/14/europe/ireland-underwear-rape-acquittal-scli-intl/index.html

You have to wonder exactly how much fuss the defence made over the photos in order to ensure the underwear got to court.

sawdust

There is a prevailing opinion amongst people in general that what a woman does can be responsible for a man's actions.

Particularly when it comes to them being raped.

This woman will have to trawl for evidence that might be used to affect juries who think that skirts are relevant to the reason why a man is raping a woman.

It's back to front. It's arse about face. It's treating the symptoms, not the problem.

The money, resources, and time needs to be spent on educating uninformed jury members why these things are irrelevant.

That way, a random woman won't have to trawl through a victim's Amazon purchasing habits, because the defence will be unable to use it as mitigation.

Yes, but we know the defence will use something that isn't relevant. Like underwear.

Therefore she has to deem something relevant, when it isn't.

Your reference to underwear is I believe from the Ulster Rugby Rape case ? I don't know what relevance that had to the case, I didn't follow it - but I would have thought it had some relevance. So, maybe the defendant had said in his statement that he and the complainant had had a conversation about them say, re: say something along the lines of how sexy they were and that this was during their consensual sex. Who knows...I really don't know the case. But if something like that was part of the defense case, then it's only fair that they should be seen by the jury.

And I'm with Jessica Eaton. Suddenly victims' phones are something that the police can get, otherwise they are claiming they are being stymied in terms of evidence gathering.

How come they can't do that for sex traffickers, Internet trolls, and pimps?

Caroline Farrow was told that although they found one of the people responsible for harassing her, the fact that they were in a group of eight or nine meant they couldn't go after them. Why not? Five minutes with some forensic investigation into this technology would have sorted it.

Why can't they do that? Where is the motivation for that to happen?

Why can't they instruct every single judge in the land, and all juries in rape trials, on rape myths? Actually start educating people that no, knickers are not relevant.

Where is the stomach for that?

Because it is that sort of information that would make the procuring of dodgy 'evidence' frowned upon. It's that sort of enlightenment that might make these trials reflect reality, rather than bloody sexist spin.

All of the above have been v relevant in past cases I have dealt with including several dropped cases and not guilty verdicts.

Ways to find rapists innocent part 4382867543

sawdustformypony

Yes, but we know the defence will use something that isn't relevant. Like underwear.

Therefore she has to deem something relevant, when it isn't.

It's not this woman judging what is and isn't relevant

Yes it is, as she is the person that decides what is relevant i.e. only that which supports the defence's case or undermines the Crown's case. The rest is not disclosed to the defence.