UK investigators told to stop mass collection of personal data in rape cases

[EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]

This is good news if it's enforced. Digital stripsearching (as it's known) plus a deep dive into the complainants' personal records and information has been an open injustice for far too long.

UK investigators told to stop mass collection of personal data in rape cases

Information commissioner says indiscriminate gathering of details is undermining trust in justice system
…
In a report, published on Tuesday, the ICO says the current approach is undermining trust and confidence in the criminal justice system and re-victimising complainants, who can be subjected to a far greater level of interrogation about their personal information than the suspects they accuse.

John Edwards, the UK information commissioner, said: “We’ve got to this position now that when somebody fronts up and makes a complaint about serious sexual assault, they have a form stuck in front of them saying: ‘Please authorise us to access any information we want’ and they [the police or prosecutors] are just not exercising the thoughtfulness and discipline we would expect and they’re going off on these quite wide fishing expeditions.

“We think these practices are widespread and they need to change and we’ve sort of put some stakes in the ground for investigators so that they understand what the limits are of their ability to investigate. What we’re saying is: ‘Here are the rules and if you don’t comply with those, we will come back with an enforcement hat on.’”

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/31/uk-investigators-told-to-stop-mass-collection-of-personal-data-in-rape-cases

Unescorted
My dad was raped by someone she met at a nightclub. The police took her phone and looked through all of her SM, messages and photos.

This would only make sense if the alleged rapist had messages on his phone that your DD had sent him.
I have never understood why the investigation so often starts with the victims phone, and not the defendants. It only makes sense if it is the victim who is being investigated.

The report literally does not say:

‘Please authorise us to access any information we want’

As you have been told several times this is purely the press's interpretation. Have you actually read the ICO report. Because rejecting their recommendation based off a news article doesn't give me any confidence that your rejection is based on anything other than a knee jerk reaction.

Have you considered that if you are not routinely taking phones off rape victims, but some forces are that possibly the reason you are rejecting the report is because it doesn't apply to you aka your force is already working in such a way that you don't require the recommendations.

Whilst that might be the case you are still very happy to reject the lived experiences of rape victims speaking out about these incidents. Perhaps instead, if your force is handling these as well as you say they are, your force should be speaking up and sharing their best practice with forces such as the met who have wholly and completely lost the publics confidence.

eurochick
It depends how many messages, voice mails or images that are involved. This will increase the length of time it takes to examine. You also have to take into account what 'position in the queue' this phone is compared to the other work they have on.

Unescorted
It should have been explained to her why they were taking the phone and the length of time it may take. If it wasn't, then its clearly wrong. It will also depends on what the defence of the suspect was in his interview as to why the phone was examined.
I agree its very intrusive - but I can't see what the alternative is if its has been raised as part of the investigation.

Charley50
Its not designed to put victims on the back foot - but it has to be an open investigation. As I said before, the victim's phone is not seized as a matter of course and i can't recall seizing such a phone in any such case I have dealt with.

Namenic
Yes, a 'locked-box' system would be ideal - but I don't think such a system exists at present. We used to have one which would download text messages quickly off phones (20 minutes) but I think as phone technology increases - smart phones, encrypted data etc etc - that system became obsolete.

The phones are not 'wiped' of their data - its just copied.

Thelnebriati
The investigation of cases such as rape start with the forensic side of things. So the crime scene, medical examination etc of the victim. Early arrest and medical examination of the suspect followed by his interview.

The phone examination only comes into it if its raised as a defence by the suspect.

The suspect can say that the victim has been messaging him constantly before or after the offence. Even if the victim denies this has happened, if its raised as a defence, it has to be examined. The suspect can also say that he no longer has his phone, or he lost it or he deleted the messages from his phone. The victim may also have messages on their phone where the suspect has admitted the offence - or helps to negate the his alibi.

Threepeonies
Yes, perhaps we are doing it right and other forces are doing it wrong. The reports of what goes on in other forces (misogynistic group chats etc) just doesn't happen on our shifts.
I'm not rejecting any experience of the victims/survivors and i have said that it is a harrowing experience to endure and it may feel to them as though we are investigating them - but if its an open investigation, all lines have to be examined - perhaps this needs to be better explained to the victims.

but I'm not sure what else we can do at present when such a defence is raised.

Felix125
Unescorted
It should have been explained to her why they were taking the phone and the length of time it may take.

re; the length of time needed to examine victims’ phones.

It seems from accounts coming from UKraine that Russian checkpoints, taking refugees phones for checking, are able to download immediately on to computers.

Felix125

re what you’ve mentioned before that because the suspect may have deleted messages, say because he doesn’t want his wife to know, ( or other reasons). the suspect’s phone needs to be looked at for evidence of the messages.

In my view the suspect’s telephone should be examined first and foremost no matter how embarrassing to them.

Also, any any deletions on the suspect’s phone should be taken as evidence of possible covering up.

I thought forensics could find deleted messages anyway - is that not the case?

Felix125
You are making it seem that victim’s phones are not being routinely taken. It would be good if that were true but that is certainly not what the public has been hearing.

The.number of prosecuted cases is dire, what ever is happening. So are the number of convictions.

“. the suspect’s phone needs to be looked at for evidence of the messages.”

I meant the victim’s phone needs to be looked at for evidence of the messages.

ScrollingLeaves
Not sure what they are looking for at the checkpoints with regards to refugee phones - but it wont meet any evidential criteria requirements for a court trial.

The suspects phone will be examined. But if we examine his first before we look at the victim's - them the victim will be without their phone even longer. Its more prudent to do both at the earliest point - that way the victim will get the phone back quicker.

Yes, any deletions off the suspects phone can be looked at as them 'covering up', but their defence will still need to be examined if its raised. Otherwise at court, their barrister will argue that the police had a line of enquiry which will cast doubt on the case - but it wasn't done.

Some deleted messages can be found - it depends on how the messages have been encrypted. Certain platforms also permanently delete such things and they are not recoverable. It will also depend if its saved on the cloud, SIM card or the phone itself.

Yes, the conviction rate is low and the conviction rate is dire - but there are various reasons for this and not just down to the phone seizures. I think another topic has discussed this at length before.

@Felix125 · Today 14:45
ScrollingLeaves
Not sure what they are looking for at the checkpoints with regards to refugee phones - but it wont meet any evidential criteria requirements for a court trial.

They want everything so as to be able to keep details, plus scrutinise them for evidence of links to Ukrainian fighters etc. KGB standards.The point is they seem to be able to pour the contents of people’s phones on to computers. I wondered if the police could do similar to speed things up.

The time the victim is deprived of their telephone is hardly the only issue though given the horrendous invasion of privacy.

Thank you for your answers.

I feel @Felix125 is getting a bit of a hard time. It sounds like the reasons for it taking a long time and being intrusive are to try and increase the likelihood of conviction? Ie - so that the defence cannot make excuses or criticize the prosecution evidence.

i’m sure the technology exists to copy data from a phone to a computer quickly. The question is: can you copy it in a secure, tamper-proof way that the defence will not find issue with? Could a review be done of the tech and procedures to improve them? - I reckon it would be possible (though I am no expert) - but as with everything - it would cost money, so society has to be willing to fund it.

Yes, it isn’t Felix125’s fault. And thank you Felix for patiently trying to answer and explain.

There are no easy answers or simple quick fixes to any of this - and from a police point of view, we are looking to lock the bad guys up and safeguard the vulnerable.

But, the rules is which we have to play by can seem unfair to those who may not see the bigger picture. I know its intrusive and an invasion of privacy when victim's phones are examined - but if the investigation has to be impartial, thorough and fair to all those involved, I can't see any other way around it at present.