I've read all the posts so far. What people have to get their head around is that the police, CPS and the courts deal with law and its associated vagaries.
Knowing something has happened is one thing, but proving it happened is another thing. As I said before, virtually all offences in England and Wales must have some measure of evidence to suggest guilt in order for an individual to be charged and convicted. This is not the case with sexual offences. So, the question is then, how do you proceed with a fair trial when you are asking a jury to consider a case where there is no physical evidence to relate to?
We MUST assume a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty, otherwise we have a lynch-mob, not a justice system.
Stranger rapes are very rare, and when they do happen there is usually ample physical evidence for a jury to consider. In the vast majority of cases of sexual assaults reported to police, the alleged victim and alleged offender are known to each other, meaning there no physical evidence that can be presented to a jury.
As tough as it may be to accept, behaviours before and after the alleged offence ARE relevant and will be looked at by both the CPS and the jury. And digital evidence, if it exists, may be the key to proving a case, or not. Which is why phones are looked at. It might not seem fair, but the accused has a right to attempt to prove their innocence. In quite a number of cases of sexual assault, we are asking a jury to consider degrees of coercive behaviour or consent.
"Yes we were both drunk"
"No I can't remember clearly what happened, but I would never have sex with a man I just met"
"Yes I was drunk, but it was her idea to keep partying, she suggested coming back to mine, we started to kiss but I can't really remember much after that"
"Yes I kissed him, but I was never going to have sex with him"
In cases like the above (and you can extrapolate many differing scenarios from that) asking a jury to figure out what the two individuals intentions were is an impossible task. Now, maybe a text message either before of after the event might add clarity, or perhaps not.
Sexual assault is an incredibly emotive subject, and unfortunately their are no winners in the game. The victim will ALWAYS see themselves as a victim, irrespective of the outcome of a trial. And the accused (because we publicy name them) WILL have their life ruined either way.
It's not an easy thing to manage.
But the IOPC lead is entitled to defend their position and we should never just assume guilt.
If we consider 70k reports of sexual offences each year, and let's say we go with the assumption that 90% of cases are never reported, and that in all cases a man is the accused, and that a different man is responsible for each offence, so no multiple victims. Then we are looking at, as a maximum, 700k men who are demonstrably sexual offenders. But that's marginally less than 2% of the male population, yes ANY offence is one too many, but it also means 98% of man are NOT behaving in a way which is concerning.
So please, can we stop with this "mumsnet logic" that ALL men are predators, that all our sons, husbands, fathers, brothers, boy scout leaders and teachers are misogynistic bastards and can't be trusted.