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

Jessica Eaton nails it again.

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

Jackyholey we do live in the uk.

This happened 6 years ago it was horrific.
We still haven't received my sons phone brand new expensive trainers or clothes back from the police.

Well my rapist robbed my phone so if they'd pursued the bastard for the phone, I might have gone to court.

So is the woman lying or the journalist?

That's a failure on the part of the detectives in question, not an indictment of having a unified approach to collection of evidence. If anything, the newly unveiled consent forms would have helped because they make it clear that agreement is not an explicit requirement for the advancement of a case.

Singasonga

Are you so unaware of how you are exemplifying the institutional misogyny and sexism of UK police services?

you do understand that suspects are perfectly okay with halting or harming the investigation, right?

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

Jacky, you do understand that suspects are perfectly okay with halting or harming the investigation, right? So they don’t need their defence to warn them about it.

Quote in the Times article I referenced earlier:

The officers told the woman that because of that case their detective sergeant would now never approve a case to go to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) without a phone, and detective constables would not even put them forward for approval.

So is the woman lying or the journalist? Please advise Gronky.

The consent form comes with a warning that "it may not be possible for the investigation or prosecution to continue" which is entirely true, as a lack of evidence can hinder an investigation or prosecution to the point of halting it.

Maybe such information should be expressed to the suspect in terms of defence may be harmed or halted, as is expressed via the statement made on arrest?

It’s almost like they WANT victims to under report and not cooperate, so more offenders get off

I really do hope that it's more a case of innocent misunderstanding or, at the very least, wanting a reason to harangue a system they feel is failing them, rather than deliberately being this outrageously malicious.

Yet again, this misreporting is being repeated to the point of gaslighting.

Bingo. It’s almost like they WANT victims to under report and not cooperate, so more offenders get off.

I would also like to ask anyone repeatedly stating words to the effect that the only way for a prosecution to proceed is for the victim to provide access to their electronics, whether they've even considered the long term effects of this misrepresentation, in terms of victims coming forwards and, if they have, why they feel this is appropriate?

Women are being told that if they want their rape allegation pursued then unlike any other crime,

Yet again, this misreporting is being repeated to the point of gaslighting. The consent form comes with a warning that "it may not be possible for the investigation or prosecution to continue" which is entirely true, as a lack of evidence can hinder an investigation or prosecution to the point of halting it.

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?

It’s not easy to fake that if you do forensics on the device. That’s why the police want to put them through forensics so they have an airtight case...

I was once told that it takes as much investigative work to prove someone innocent (no further action) as it does to gather a case to charge them. In the old days, there was no digital evidence so the cops just applied prejudice and bias when there were no witnesses. Now there’s potentially lots of evidence, but it’s “problematic” for them to investigate it.

Do you understand that devices are not converted by custody time limits, and that the police aren’t holding them for fun but due to lack of resources?*

But, if 'people's lives' are conducted online, as police are so content to state when it suits them, how come 'people's lives' can be suspended for months and months while police detain the media that express those 'online lives'?

My point is that perhaps such detention should be subject to "custody time limits".

How can police officers justify detaining a woman's mobile phone and laptop for beyond six months as is currently the case with one victim of online abuse?

Sadly nothing is being 'offered Gronky.
Women are being told that if they want their rape allegation pursued then unlike any other crime, they must hand over all their devices for as many months / years that the police wish before the crime will be dealt with. Discriminatory and yet again, treating victims as the guilty party.

@sarahtancredi 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?

Completely agree. If anything, there’s more reason for it to have been written by someone else (trying to get the attacker off the hook!)

Argh my blood is just boiling tonight over all this and the fucking shitty patriarchal world we live in!

Do you understand that devices are not converted by custody time limits*, and that the police aren’t holding them for fun but due to lack of resources?

*These aren’t just a civil liberties gift btw, they are also about saving money. A LOT of problems come down to austerity. Don’t get me started on legal aid cuts...

I do understand about lack of funding. It’s bloody ridiculous the way our public services are expected to operate with no money and making cuts left right and centre. I wish there was more focus on exactly what the consequences are of defunding vital services like forensics, but I sadly suspect the current government would use it as a reason to sell the police service off to the highest bidder. I don’t know what the answer is. I wish victims didn’t have to go through such a horrific ordeal and then go through a second ordeal to try and secure justice. I think sometimes we do need to take a step back and say, hang on, why exactly do we do this? Does it help? What is the potential impact of this action? I’m not convinced this is a practice which will ever help victims of rape. Just one more obstacle to overcome.

Ah, you’re a libertarian who thinks that devices are people

No .. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of UK police, who are more than happy to state that people's lives are conducted online these days but are not content to apply this dictum to people's online lives when ot comes to the media of those "online lives".

Maybe UK PACE law needs to adjust to this to facilitate such circumstance?

And you have justified why no-one's phone or social media records should be subject to forensic investigation until such time as when they can be concluded within 24 hours.

Ah, you’re a libertarian who thinks that devices are people.

Removing the burglary victim's phone, computer etc to be assured that there has been no communication with the perpetrator in the last 5 / 10 / 15 years is disproportionate and treats the burglary victim as a potential criminal.

Where is it indicated that this is the intended purpose? I disagree with the phone itself being retained but agree fully that the opportunity and a system by which a victim can have the contents of their phone securely recorded for the purposes of providing evidence should be offered.