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

I feel I am missing something here. How many rape victims would continue if they were told that any texts or emails they had sent will definitely be part of the defence, even if they have not originated from the victim? That they will be read out in court. And that if the prosecution is unprepared, it won't go well.

So, it seems that the woman in that case thought or hoped that the defence would not have the information. The prosecution was totally screwed up, and this was a major, high profile case with a lot of media attention and multiple victims. I am not sure if she was a fool, or they didn't give her good advice. I kind of suspect the former - I had the strong impression that of the victims in the case, she might well be there more because she was interested in the media exposure than anything else. Ad I think had she given them the emails they might have not had her as one of the people involved in the case, and just kept to the more reliable witnesses.

Because if isn’t a choice if they are told the case won’t proceed without violating their privacy further by taking phones indefinitely.

It is a choice, but like all chpices, effects come out of it.

If you choose not to give police access to a source of evidence, they do not magically get access to that access anyway. When a decision is made to prosecute a crime, it is based on whether or not there is any or enough evidence. So yes, by logical necessity, if police do not have evidence that might exist on your phoe, it is a possibility there will not be enough evidence.

That isn't a situation caused by the police or that they have any power to fix.

It is no different than if I complain about identity fraud, but choose not to give police access to my private records and online information. That is absolutely my choice. It is also very likely that they will not have enough evidence to go forward. That is not because they are being jerks. And telling me "if we cannot look at this, we may not have information that will be important to the case" is not some kind of inappropriate pressure. If they did not tell people this, they would complain, and rightly so.

It really seems like you don't understand how the police build a case or what happens in a court. You said above that the police should tell the suspect that they could be damaged by not giving them evidence. You know they do tell them that if they withhold information that they use in court, it could damage them - n fact they are legally obliged to tell them that. And you can bet their lawyers are telling them that if they withhold evidence or information that the prosecution finds it could very easily decide their fate.

Rape is illegal.

Slavery is illegal.

But there are still loads of slaves.

And there is still loads of rape.

Slavery goes largely unpunished.

And rape is largely unpunished.

Slavery is effectively legal.

Rape is effectively legal.

Effectively, RAPE IS now LEGAL in the UK.

What is not relevant? Anything not relating to the case. I certainly wouldn’t be exhibiting anything about messages to others, pictures, where they have been and with whom unless it is absolutely relevant to what has been alleged to have happened.

Oh dear lord. But this is the whole POINT.

A woman's knickers are not relevant.

But the defence will make them so.

Therefore they are relevant.

It's not this woman judging what is and isn't relevant, she is judging what can be spun as relevant.

This is a short thread from a woman responsible for looking through a victims phone on behalf of the defence. .

1. Lots in press and on twitter today about police and defence having access to complainant’s phones. Well often I am the one who gets that defence access - often only me who has the full phone access and not solicitors/barristers and certainly not defendants

1. I will then have a v important job to find RELEVANT evidence.....

• messages talking about enjoying having sex after an alleged rape.
• inaccurate timings of when visits took place (previous day) by hours.
• calls occurring including attempted calls to persons in case.
• messages sent to others discussing alleged offence.
• pictures.
• google searches.
• location information - where person was at time of interest.

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

1. Relevance is a difficult concept. I often have issues with police about what I will be allowed to look at - that will be everything because I don’t know what I will find until I find it! I have a professional job to do as an expert. I am impartial and work for court.

1. What is not relevant? Anything not relating to the case. I certainly wouldn’t be exhibiting anything about messages to others, pictures, where they have been and with whom unless it is absolutely relevant to what has been alleged to have happened.

twitter.com/SamRaincock/status/1122853713478074368

Good lord when women's underwear, or even the skirt they happen to be wearing is mitigation of rape, of course stuff on one's phone is going to be used against one.

This.

I will never forget the case of Rehtaeh Parson (in Canada I think). She was at a party in a school mate's house with her friend. Her friend decided to go home, Rehtaeh decided to stay with the cool boys and drink some more.

The end of it was rape. And the guys who did it had the temerity to proudly show the video of the rape around in school. Rehtaeh was relentlessly bullied for it. The video showed an apparently unconscious woman, who was raped. The identity of the boys was unambigous on the footage, as was the location, as was the fact they were raping a female who could not consent.

When Rehtaeh went to the police they seized the footage from the boys' phones. But ultimately the police decided they could not press charges. Because, they said, Rehtaeh was by her own account drunk and could not remember much, she could not be sure she had actually been raped (!), right? And as for the footage: Her face was not visible, so it could have been someone else. (Of course no potential alternative woman was ever identified and the whole f*ing school knew who was on the footage. The boys had bragged about it after all).

Rehtaeh changed school and ultimately commited suicide.

In a world where this is possible, I know what to think of this victim-phone-download shit.

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.

Good lord when women's underwear, or even the skirt they happen to be wearing is mitigation of rape, of course stuff on one's phone is going to be used against one.

No Sawdust, you've missed your own bias.

What should happen is that phones are looked at where there is reasonable expectation that it will provide information relevant to the case.

What actually happens is police demand the victim hand over all their mobile devices for an unlimited amount of time, without any idea if there is relevant material there or not.

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.

I’ve read this entire thread. It’s clear that the prejudice shown here is the antithesis of a fair trial. Fortunately, it’s a prejudice that is not widespread.

So what strikes me as unfair about this practice is that the police are gaining data that is completely irrelevant to the offence.

This is it.

There are only so many communication apps one can have. An afternoon with the victim, in a room, with a lawyer while she shows you would surely be sufficient.

It's absolutely crazy that they will be able to look at, as Jessica says, all your online shopping, your finance apps, texts to your mum, your emails, your photo album, taping yourself singing in the shower, if you've watched porn, etc etc.

God it makes my heart start thumping just thinking of it. Having coppers rake over the most intimate parts of your life, with the express intention of testing your credibility?

Jesus. Who would go through that after being raped???

For anyone who missed it, Jessica Eaton's blog that Datun referenced earlier really nails the issues. She makes so many good points but I've copied one below that really resonates:

Can ANYONE explain to me why the professionals working in CSE, trafficking and child abuse are being told by police forces that there is nothing more they can do to disrupt perpetrators and that they can’t possibly seize phones and iPads without evidence or warrants? How the hell have you managed to utilise tactics against victims that you can’t even use against child traffickers? How have the police managed to convince other professions that change is slow and cumbersome, will take years and will be hard to achieve – when this has been turned around in a matter of months? How has blackmail been signed off as a tactic against victims?

Men's wishes prioritised over women's safety every single bloody time.

victimfocus.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/7-reasons-why-i-dont-support-police-checking-victims-mobile-phones-in-sexual-violence-cases/

Random extra 'does' in that post, please mentally edit...

I'm still confused. Is there another crime in which the conflicting and traumatized feelings of the victim, recorded on their private device, are possible mitigating evidence that has relevance in court?

If I am burgled, and send some texts saying I am feeling pretty sanguine about it, does would that be evidence admissable to show that the burglar didn't really break into my house and steal my things?

The problem was not the content of the emails, it was that she had actually lied and said she'd not be in contact with him again

I feel I am missing something here. How many rape victims would continue if they were told that any texts or emails they had sent will definitely be part of the defence, even if they have not originated from the victim? That they will be read out in court. And that if the prosecution is unprepared, it won't go well.

Most victims will understand that even if they don't tell the police, the rapist will.

There has to be a really tiny number of victims who, having grasped that the information will be revealed in public anyway, won't then go on to supply details, surely?

This whole episode has been badly framed.

Mobile phones are a core part of our lives now. They are often a vital source for evidence in many crimes. In a case which involves two or more direct interlocutors there may be need to examine all communications between them and some with third-parties.

Of course, information about a victim has to be shared within a small group. A few people will have to know more things about the victim than they would have should the case not have taken place. Their privacy will be reduced.

Of course, in this way absolute privacy and justice contradict. It may be unpleasant and regrettable but it is the least-worst option.

Of course, that information should generally remain with only those few people necessary to handle the case.

Of course there should be the utmost care and safeguards for that information.

Of course, in many cases, evidence from phones will not matter.

Of course, it will be necessary in some cases to examine the contents of a phone to establish that it is not pertinent to the case.

Of course, the Police, the prosecutors, the defence team and society need to continue to prove that they can be trusted with the victim's personal information.

This is in the same realm as the medical forensic examination rape victims have the choice of going through. They don't have to do it, many don't, but the reality is by not doing it, the likelihood of conviction is reduced.

A headline of "Rape victim told case may be dropped unless they have invasive forensic examination" would also be accurate but misleading. The reason Police ask for these things to be done is not sadism or curiosity. They want convictions, they want all the evidence, they want the best for the victim.

I'm more than happy to change disclosure laws, leaving it down to individual officers complete discretion.

Victims are allowed to refuse access, in rape, and in most crimes - it's simply incorrect to say they can't and I don't know why people keep saying otherwise.

Because if isn’t a choice if they are told the case won’t proceed without violating their privacy further by taking phones indefinitely.

Honey you really ought to do more than a ‘quick google search’ or perhaps get better at it, because the claim you made earlier about false accusations of rape is way off and you should ask for your comment to be removed ( I’m glad MNHQ decided to remove your disgusting initial comment on this thread )

False rape accusations are less than 1 percent

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-men-are-more-likely-to-be-raped-than-be-falsely-accused-of-rape

And maybe any jury should be made aware of such an attitude so that jury members can make of that what they will?

What does that even mean? You want the judge to tell the jury, "Oh by the way, these defendants would really like to be found not guilty, even if they really are - not that they said so, but we can guess it to be the case."

There was a case where I live where a case collapsed because of the victim not giving all the relevant material. It tuned out that she had been corresponding with the accused afterward, and had asked him to get together again. The defence got the emails from him, though.

The problem was not the content of the emails, it was that she had actually lied and said she'd not be in contact with him again. So it raised real questions about her credibility over all, and became impossible to get a conviction.

Do people realise that false allegations really aren't the only issue here? There are also other reasons to investigate serious charges like this. Sometimes the wrong person is charged, sometimes the crime accurs in a complicated or unclear part of the law. There are hundreds of potential scenarios and reasons that it is important that crimes are actually investigated with an open mind, looking at as much evidence as posissible.
People don't have to give access to their phones. Unlike suspects, who very likely do have to give access. But, just like most other crimes, if you restrict access to something that could be relevant, you may have less evidence. And if you have less evidence, when the decision is made whether to prosecute, maybe it won't be enough. Or maybe the defence will get hold of information that seems to be to their benefit, which the prosecution could have shown to be unimportant.

I am really not understanding how it is that people think the police should magically get the same results without the same opportunities to look at the evidence. Victims are allowed to refuse access, in rape, and in most crimes - it's simply incorrect to say they can't and I don't know why people keep saying otherwise. And in rape, and in most crimes, if they do choose for whatever reason to do that, there may be poorer results.

So compelling from actual rape victim making it very clear was this is about and the further violation it causes

Excerpt from The Guardian

My sexual assault case was dropped when I refused to give police my phone
Anonymous
Victims of rape and assault shouldn’t have to choose between privacy and justice That’s why I’m suing the government

A few years ago I was violently sexually assaulted by a “friend” on a night out. It was a sustained and sadistic attack that in no way began with consent. I made the incredibly difficult decision to report it to the police because I needed to take power back. I wanted to look him in the eyes in court and watch him feel a fraction of the helplessness and humiliation that I felt that night. I wanted to tell him I had the power now, with the full weight of the law behind me. Unfortunately it didn’t work out as I expected.

Rape cases ‘could fail’ if victims refuse to give police access to phones
Read more
Even though some time had elapsed between the assault and my reporting of it, there was evidence that the police acknowledged as compelling. Despite this, my case was dropped not because of an unlikely prospect of conviction, but because I refused to hand over my mobile phone to be downloaded in its entirety.

Advertisement

I consider that request to be a gross violation of my human rights. What is on my phone is private and irrelevant to the crime that was committed. But I know that it has the potential to be used to humiliate and discredit me on the stand. It will be the digital version of the “short skirt”. This is why I have started a legal case against the government with a team from the Centre for Women’s Justice, including Harriet Wistrich. This has the potential to change how victims of sexual assault are treated when they report incidents to the police and will encourage more to do so in the knowledge they are protected.

The way I have been treated by the Crown Prosecution Service has affected me deeply. In the years of dealing with intrusive requests from the police, such as asking for my counselling or medical records, I have been a shadow of my former self. They would tell me I had to supply this information or they wouldn’t pursue my case. I was diagnosed with PTSD, not from the assault but from how I was treated by the authorities after reporting it. Over the course of the investigation, when a new request for deeply personal information would come in, I had panic attacks that resulted in 999 calls.

Get Society Weekly: our newsletter for public service professionals
Read more
Unable to think properly or function for months at a time, I felt betrayed by the people who should have been there to help. I was legitimately concerned that my data could be handed over, as part of disclosure, to the man who violated me. Imagine your most private thoughts and feelings from counselling held in your phone being seen by anyone, let alone your rapist. And imagine those thoughts and feelings then being used to humiliate and discredit you in front of a courtroom of people judging you. And then imagine having no guarantee about how in the future this data may be used or stored. The decision to have my case dropped was a no-brainer for self-preservation, but I now feel that the requirement to surrender one’s data is the same as being raped with impunity.

The optimism I had at the beginning of this process of “taking power back” has been replaced with a feeling of absolute helplessness. Why would other victims of rape or sexual assault come forward to make complaints knowing all their past emails, messages and photographs, however irrelevant to the case, would be subjected to similar scrutiny under this policy?

The outpouring of support from the public has given me some grounds for hope. I will not stop fighting until this policy is changed to ensure no victim ever has to choose between privacy and justice as I did

I didn't mean witness, I meant victim [of rape]

I heard witness say tonight its her privacy or justice, that was her ultimatum, she chose her privacy (for her own private reasons)