To share with you the reasons victims of rape should not share the contents of their phone with the police?

[Destinysdaughter]

This blog post starts with the simple line, because it’s victim blaming. To me, this is so clear and so beautifully written, from a woman who was worked with victims of sexual violence for ten years. So she knows what she’s talking about. I urge you to read this and think about it. To me, it will put women off reporting rape even more than they already do and is just taking things in the wrong direction.

Take it how you want. I’ve said what I think

That blog makes some fair points. But you can't possibly expect to change policy if you fail to address the very reason that policy was instigated. That reason is disclosure and the right to a fair trial.

Put simply, I don't see how it's possible to have a fair trial without the mobile messages of both parties being available to both legal teams.

If someone wants to change the policy, they need to convincingly address that point.

Oh, and from a cursory look at other posts:

• For the purposes of supporting the victims - we should simply believe them and be as supportive as possible. Which is the worst mistake - not supporting a victim, or being too supportive of someone else? It's a no-brainer. Believe them. No questions asked. Just be supportive.
• For the purposes of convicting an alleged attacker? Also easy: it is innocent unless proven guilty in this country, and with the right to a fair trial.

I showed the police messages from my phone but at no point did they ask for my phone, I was told to screen shot any relivent messages, emails, WhatsApp’s and forward them to the officer in charge, I would have handed my phone over if asked too. In my case there wasn’t enough evidence to charge for rape (which is often the case) but due to the phone evidence he was charged for harassment.

Rape is one of the hardest cases to prove, unless there’s dna evedence and signs of a struggle it’s your word against there’s, I would have thought it’s pretty rare that someone is falsely charged and trialed for rape but there are situations where it could happen. If looking on someone’s phone can stop this then that has to be a good thing?

It's also possible to believe and support an alleged victim whilst still believing that the accused has a right to a fair trial and has a right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty

Support - yes, definitely. But with belief, doesn't it depend on who's doing the believing? It's natural for family and friends to do so, but maybe it's safer for investigators to keep a more open mind to ensure the process is followed properly for everyone's sake

Fairness should mean being fair to all parties and "innocent until proved guilty" should mean exactly that, no matter how much some campaigners might wish it was otherwise ... though sadly, in cases which so often come down to he said/she said, thing whole thing's never going to be easy

Yes, I was talking about someone who is a friend or family member rather than someone you don't know.

BertrandRussell you said: If my son was accused I would of course believe him and support But I would know in my heart of hearts that he was probably guilty.
Did you really mean that? Assuming that your son has no form for rape or sexual assault of any kind, does this remark just not show how far you are prejudiced? Would you not want to look at the evidence before coming to this conclusion about anybody accused, let alone your son, whom, I take it, you love? What if he had a cast iron alibi given by his sister - would you disbelieve her in your heart of hearts as well? What if his accuser's phone showed she had texted somebody saying she had been spurned by BRSon and was going to get revenge? I just hope you never sit on a jury, especially one trying anybody I care about.

Rape is one of the hardest cases to prove, unless there’s dna evedence and signs of a struggle it’s your word against there’s

Even with DNA evidence and signs of a struggle it’s your word against theirs. More and more we are seeing “rough consensual sex” being the excuse for signs of violence on a victim.

@FCF

Sorry if it seems I'm picking on you or your points, that's not my intention, but once again this is subjective bias. If you consider that a criminal case (in all criminal cases) it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt then that is of course a logical conclusion. The onus should be on the accuser to prove the case rather than the defendant disprove it, it's a fundamental cornerstone of our justice system.

I'm sorry but you don't understand criminal law. In an accusation of rape, consent is a defence which reverses the burden of proof onto the defendant to prove that the victim gave consent or that the defendant had a reasonable belief that s/he did so.

@Curious

Your third example was not a false accusation of rape. It was slander and actionable as a civil wrong in civil proceedings.

@Collaborate

*I just want to relate a situation in which a complainant's sexual history may become relevant.

Let's assume (as is often the case) that the issue is one of consent. The defence counsel puts it to the accused that she consented to a particular sexual act. She says she didn't, but goes further than that and says it is not something she enjoys doing consensually.*

Presume you mean the "victim" rather than the "accused", although the mistake is revealing of your mind set.

*Let's assume that the defence counsel knows there is evidence that the complainant has enjoyed doing this with sexual partners. This evidence shows that she has lied - not in saying she was raped, but in explaining why the jury should believe her when she says she was raped.

Does anyone not think that to be relevant?*

It isn't relevant. It would be used to undermine the victim's credibility which is supposed to be prohibited. I would also like to know how the defence got information pertaining to the victim's sexual history. Also how would the defendant would have known if the victim has previously consented to a particular sexual act? Consent to one particular sex act at one time with one partner is not unlimited consent at all times in all circumstances with all partners. That view is shot through with misogyny.

The issue is one of consent because that is usually the defence that rapists use. Since DNA evidence it's very hard to deny the sexual act occurred therefore the emphasis has shifted onto consent as a defence precisely because it is much easier for a defendant to use a victim's sexual history/medical history/relationship history or mental health to cast doubt on her/his credibility and the courts are far too willing imho to allow this evidence to be presented.

So you don’t think it’s relevant that sworn evidence can be shown to be false?

That’s a great position to adopt.

But if they don’t share then the man is more likely to go free. Phone contents can provide crucial evidence which lands convictions. Most rapes are impossible to prove but data gathered from phones can be the thing that lands a conviction.

@NoelFridgeAntics rape is not strict liability so the courts can’t run a rape case without that kind of evidence.

Peopke bandy about the phrase "victim blaming" as if it is an undeniable fact this person reporting a crime is in fact telling the truth. Sadly sometimes peopke lie, even about something like this, because they get off on sympathy and ruining someone's life.

I have all the sympathy in the world for victims of rape, but it is the police's job to investigate crimes. They arent looking for a way to pin it on the victim they are looking for evidence. You're living in a fairy land if you think you can accuse someone of a crime and not face an investigation. Should we ban rape.kits as well? DNA testing? Good grief.

However good the reasons are for a woman keeping her phone private, the alternative option is allowing the potential for an innocent person to be imprisoned and have their lives, careers and relationships completely destroyed.

That cannot be allowed to happen at the hands of our justice system. It is worse for a crown court to do wrong than it is for an individual.

the alternative option is allowing the potential for an innocent person to be imprisoned and have their lives, careers and relationships completely destroyed.

That cannot be allowed to happen at the hands of our justice system.

With the conviction rate for rape (actual rapes, of the “yes, he did it!” Variety) now down to 1.7% how can that possibly be an even vague possibility? They can’t even convict the ones that are guilty!!

Over the last decade or so the state has become more and more keen to classify things that are rape so they look like they're not and create a hostile environment for rape victims. I'd say the wish to sweep things under the carpet is the most likely cause for this since rapes went up astronomically in the last few years.

Frankly, without wishing to go there too much, the powers that be in central and local government have already demonstrated, in 20+ cities in the UK, that they consider the rape of children to be absolutely nothing compared to their own political ends, it's just fine by them... why would rapes of adult women be any different?

They can’t even convict the ones that are guilty!!

Maybe they will when they are allowed full access to evidence.

It's the lack of evidence that makes rape cases so hard to prove, that's what makes it so different to any other crime. As phone technology now exists, it should be used in cases where it might make a difference.

Right, and you think the evidence of rape lies in the phone of a victim who for some reason doesn’t want to share that evidence?

I mean victims with the proof enough to convict sitting on their phones have been hiding it up til now, have they?

Sometimes that might be the case. I had messages on a victims phone where the suspect admitted rape.

Nicknacky presumably the fact you “had” the messages meant the victim volunteered the information? Because as it stands the police don’t currently confiscate accusers phones, right? So that accuser wasn’t withholding the evidence. This new idea wouldn’t affect the case you’re referring to.

I don't know, but if the police think it will make a difference enough to have wanted this change, then that's good enough for me.

Yes, we seize all suspects phones.

But you were doubting that evidence can be contained on phones, I was stating that isn’t always the case.

And the cps has posted a statement to say this isn’t new, phones have been seized for years in serious crime investigations.

Nicknacky
The victim is not the accused. What the police are doing is not legal. Its also a breach of GDPR, thats why they need the victim to sign a consent form.

Did you read the blog that OP posted a link to? I suggest you do, your opinions are well meant but not based in fact.
Its here;
victimfocus.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/7-reasons-why-i-dont-support-police-checking-victims-mobile-phones-in-sexual-violence-cases/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

''Police and prosecutors say the 'digital consent' forms are an attempt to plug a gap in the law, which cannot force complainants or witnesses to disclose their phones, laptops, tablets and smart watches.''
www.itv.com/news/2019-04-29/rape-victims-must-hand-over-phones-or-prosecutions-may-not-go-ahead-police/