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

It's because of the Liam Allen case.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/liam-allan-met-police-rape-accusation-false-evidence-disclosure-arrest-mistake-detectives-a8184916.html

He actually capamapigned for this, because his victim supposedly texted a friend saying "she wanted it", but there could be also sorts of reason why victims do that. Usually it's to pretend they had some sort of control over the situation when they didn't.

Read this post about a woman who exaplained why she texted her rapist afterwards and why she was in denail about it being rape for so many years:

therumpus.net/2018/06/all-the-reasons-i-texted-my-rapist/

Welcome to Austerity Britain, where new forensics cases sit in a backlog even if they should only take a short time to turn around.

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.

A suspect can only be detained for 24 hours [subject to extension granted by a warrant approved by a magistrate to a maximum of 96 hours.] .

Police are content to say that people's lives are conducted online these days so why does that 24 hours restriction not also apply to people's 'online lives'?

Your DS was 14?
Had he had conseual sex?

One case of lying does not constitute a reason for denying all rape victims the proper and sensitive treatment she she expect as a matter of course.

How can anyone defend male rapists and victim-blaming women like this, in the full knowledge of the horror of this crime and the continued myths?

Why doesn't anyone think that one story of an experience constitutes the need to ride across everything else.

Are you suggesting we resurrect and promote further myths and lies, based on the rare case?

Many women also drop genuine rape charges for many reasons. It's notoriously difficult to face and too much for many, but let's big up the the rare lie

SingaSonga - there's an easy solution

Get rid of the hundreds of thousands of hours & £££ investigating hate crimes and the related police funding / attending conferences run by political lobby groups. That would sort it I suspect.

A more apt comparison would be a burglary victim who has CCTV being warned that not handing over the footage might result in difficulty securing a prosecution. It would seem remiss of an investigating officer to not mention this if the victim refuses.

Sorry Gronky - your example proves the point. Wanting the CCTV footage is a proportionate response. 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. Which is precisely what is happening to women alleging rape.

My son was accused of rape he was 14 and was dragged out of the house in handcuffs at dawn. He was arrested and bailed not allowed to go to school and was beaten up repeatedly.

I am guessing you do not live in UK.

1. There is surely no need for police to keep the victim’s phone beyond a day at most

Welcome to Austerity Britain, where new forensics cases sit in a backlog even if they should only take a short time to turn around. Which organised crime investigations, or child sexual abuse investigations, would you like to deprioritise to move the rape victim’s case up in the queue? Because that’s what it would take to get that kind of rapid turnaround for victim cooperation.

Why the specific focus on the abused female victims?

Could it be that police see this as an "easier" route to access information because police perceive women as being submissive and subordinate to their perceived male authority?

If so, this is blatant evidence of institutional sexism and misogyny.

My son was accused of rape he was 14 and was dragged out of the house in handcuffs at dawn. He was arrested and bailed not allowed to go to school and was beaten up repeatedly.
It took 3 weeks for the police to find the evidence to exonerate him (it was on the girls phone). She then admitted lying and all charges were dropped.
Nothing happened to the girl 😖 even though this was her second time of making false allegations. My son had to deal with the fall out for about 12 months until it all died down.
I do think the police should have the powers to look at someone's phone if there may be evidence on it but it should never have been made a blanket rule.
It's tricky and I'm not sure how they should handle it to be honest.

I must say, that seems like a very unfair assessment. Being proactive and taking the maximum steps to ensure that a fair verdict is secured with the maximum amount of admissible evidence is hardly something to criticise.

So, why are police not demanding to access the phone records and social media records of suspects via such consent forms?

Why the specific focus on the abused female victims?

The people on this thread who seem to think it is completely acceptable for police to take (and keep for months on end) the phones of rape victims are spectacularly missing the point we are trying to make.

We understand there may be something on the victim’s phone which will assist the police in pursuing a prosecution. That is not in doubt. Of course the police will want to know if there has been any contact or whatever between the victim and the accused. However:

1. There is surely no need for police to keep the victim’s phone beyond a day at most

1. We know, we know because we see it all the time, that whatever is on the victim’s phone will be used to discredit her in court. Even if she were a fucking nun who had been raped by a stranger in broad daylight in the middle of the town centre I imagine the prosecution would still be trying to paint her as either some harlot who was asking for it or mentally unstable/lying. That’s their job isn’t it. To discredit the victim so the jury begin to reasonably doubt she was raped. To play on the rape myths which are so fucking prevalent up and down the country that men walk free because juries and judges believe the victim was too successful and had friends so therefore couldn’t be raped. Or, you know, had consented to being horrifically beaten and other awful things before being left to die. If there is anything at all on that phone which can be used against the victim, even if it is completely irrelevant to the moment when she was raped, it will be.

As a side note here, I cannot understand why, when the question is whether or not the victim gave consent why the victim’s behaviour on holiday with the girls 3 years ago is relevant. The mind boggles. Truly horrible.

1. No matter what is on that phone, if it doesn’t pertain to the exact few hours when the rape took place, I cannot understand why it needs to be discussed in court. Underwear passed around, the victim on the stand for cross-examination. If she is texting 5 other men, planning dates, drunk WHATEVER, she can still be raped.

She can withdraw consent 2 seconds before sex. She can withdraw consent at any time or never give it in the first place. How the fuck does what’s on her phone, or her previous sexual or medical history, or anything, help prove or disprove the case? Let’s have a look at HIS history instead. What’s his history like? Why is it so often inadmissible to discuss HIS previous charges? I cannot think of any other crimes where the victim is pretty much assumed to be lying from the get go.

Those who think this is acceptable, can you tell me what exactly you think will be on a phone which might be useful that would necessitate keeping that phone? I do understand that he is innocent until proven guilty. But even when there is an admission of guilt on the phone, or a fucking video it doesn’t seem to be enough. So if anyone could tell me what would be enough, I would love to hear it.

All I can see is that it seems nothing is ever enough in the vast majority of cases, so the victim surrenders her phone, her support network is cut off, her entire life is picked apart in court, she’s traumatised further and the arsehole who raped her walks free.

It’s NOT about the police not believing you because you’re not a perfect victim, it’s about proving you didn’t message all your mates and the offender after telling them all what a great time you had on the night of the incident - because that’s exactly why a big case collapsed recently. The CPS really got it in the neck for not insisting on ALL the records, including those sent by the victim to her friends, which ended up in the defence’s hands.

whether burglary victims are forced to hand over their phones and computers before the police / CPS will prosecute a burglar

A more apt comparison would be a burglary victim who has CCTV being warned that not handing over the footage might result in difficulty securing a prosecution. It would seem remiss of an investigating officer to not mention this if the victim refuses.

whether burglary victims are forced to hand over their phones and computers before the police / CPS will prosecute a burglar

A more apt comparison would be a burglary victim who has CCTV being warned that not handing over the footage might result in difficulty securing a prosecution. It would seem remiss of an investigating officer to not mention this if the victim refuses.

Wtf this is disgusting.
I was enjoying a healthy sex life with multiple partners when I was raped.
If the police had my phone they wouldn't of believed me (ironically I didn't go to the police because I thought they wouldn't believe me)
Rape is a crime of power yet the police are taking power from the survivor just like the rapist did.
I'm ducking fuming

It's 2019

We have a female PM and Police Commissioner

And this actually came into practice?

I'm so disgusted I've no words this evening- I feel women in this country have been systematically undermined , stripped of any rights, identity or protection already and now this. I want to scream from the rooftops and rattle the cage of every single MP until this is turned over.

Time to say NO and for folks to understand what that means.

Great, so you DO want no prosecutions at all.

Here’s a thought. Maybe try changing the jury’s minds, so if they hear that a victim was friendly to her attacker and agrees to meet him that DOESN’T mean she can’t change her mind. Then instead of insisting that the police not investigate the whole evidence base, all defendants will just roll over and not contest and juries will not dream of returning a not guilty verdict.

Or you can just accept that if cases keep collapsing, there will be fewer charges brought. It’s a case of being careful what you wish for.

I’ve explained to you Jackie, but you would rather see fewer convictions and more collapses cases.

[Psst! It's Jacky not Jackie!]

How does forensically interrogating the phone records and social media of suspects lead to fewer convictions an more collapsed cases?

Please explain.

Cases dont collapse cos someone sent a few text messages ffs.

If prosecutions dont happen when the whole rape was witnessed by multiple people, when it was recorded in a phone, hell when it happens infront of people in a school playground. Then there's nothing a WhatsApp chat will prove.

This God awful accusation they victim is somehow preventing her case going forward cos she wont hand over her phone is disgusting.

Dont put this on the victims. When they whole system is designed to protect men.

And remember, in UK, police can only exist and do what they do via public consent.

If 50+% of public [ie: females] do not consent to how police serve them, police officers have no validity for females and justice has no validity for females.

Beyond when people are prosecuted for false allegations, there’s been some research looking at police case files, to try and work out how common false allegations are more generally. Here, there isn’t actually a single definition of what constitutes a false allegation.

Research by the Ministry of Justice in 2012 estimated that around 3% of 1,149 rape cases they analysed were perceived to be malicious allegations. These are not proven cases of false or malicious allegations. This echoes a study for the Home Office from 2005 which found that about 3% of cases they studied might be considered ‘probable’ or ‘possible’ false allegations.

Both studies emphasise the limitations of their data

While false rape allegations do include people complaining maliciously, this isn’t always the case. Research has suggested that allegations can turn out to be false if the person who reported it to the police misremembered what happened, didn’t know what happened and wanted to find out, or misunderstood the law. The CPS, for example, mentions cases where people report to the police because they thought they might have been raped, but can’t recall because they had been affected by drugs or alcohol.

Idly wonders whether burglary victims are forced to hand over their phones and computers before the police / CPS will prosecute a burglar??

I’ve explained to you Jackie, but you would rather see fewer convictions and more collapses cases.

The entire effing point today is why are police focusing their evidence on the phone and social media records of victims rather than suspects?

Institutional sexism and misogyny within UK police services is why!

Police upholding a male directed judicial system designed by men to protect men and deter women is why!

If the victim isn’t alive then the police need to investigate whether the crime is murder, manslaughter, an accident, or suicide. They will use wet and digital forensics to determine this.

Consent is rather less of an issue then.

Shall we talk about whether anyone ever checks to see if a burglary isn’t actually an insurance fraud? Because that happens too and there are checks for that using digital info, too.