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

[RedToothBrush]

Both Independent and Times carrying story on their front page.

This is going to backfire spectacularly.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Singasonga

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

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.

The Times and Mail have the story on the cover again tonight

The Times refers to a victim support quote which says that women are dropping cases because they feared a 'digital strip search' that this represented.

The Mail says its a licence for rapists.

No punches pulled.

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

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.

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/

I heard witness say tonight its her privacy or justice, that was her ultimatum, she chose her privacy (for her own private reasons)

I didn't mean witness, I meant victim [of rape]

Excerpt from The Guardian

My sexual assault case was dropped when I refused to give police my phone
Anonymous
Victims of rape and assault shouldn’t have to choose between privacy and justice That’s why I’m suing the government

A few years ago I was violently sexually assaulted by a “friend” on a night out. It was a sustained and sadistic attack that in no way began with consent. I made the incredibly difficult decision to report it to the police because I needed to take power back. I wanted to look him in the eyes in court and watch him feel a fraction of the helplessness and humiliation that I felt that night. I wanted to tell him I had the power now, with the full weight of the law behind me. Unfortunately it didn’t work out as I expected.

Rape cases ‘could fail’ if victims refuse to give police access to phones
Read more
Even though some time had elapsed between the assault and my reporting of it, there was evidence that the police acknowledged as compelling. Despite this, my case was dropped not because of an unlikely prospect of conviction, but because I refused to hand over my mobile phone to be downloaded in its entirety.

Advertisement

I consider that request to be a gross violation of my human rights. What is on my phone is private and irrelevant to the crime that was committed. But I know that it has the potential to be used to humiliate and discredit me on the stand. It will be the digital version of the “short skirt”. This is why I have started a legal case against the government with a team from the Centre for Women’s Justice, including Harriet Wistrich. This has the potential to change how victims of sexual assault are treated when they report incidents to the police and will encourage more to do so in the knowledge they are protected.

The way I have been treated by the Crown Prosecution Service has affected me deeply. In the years of dealing with intrusive requests from the police, such as asking for my counselling or medical records, I have been a shadow of my former self. They would tell me I had to supply this information or they wouldn’t pursue my case. I was diagnosed with PTSD, not from the assault but from how I was treated by the authorities after reporting it. Over the course of the investigation, when a new request for deeply personal information would come in, I had panic attacks that resulted in 999 calls.

Get Society Weekly: our newsletter for public service professionals
Read more
Unable to think properly or function for months at a time, I felt betrayed by the people who should have been there to help. I was legitimately concerned that my data could be handed over, as part of disclosure, to the man who violated me. Imagine your most private thoughts and feelings from counselling held in your phone being seen by anyone, let alone your rapist. And imagine those thoughts and feelings then being used to humiliate and discredit you in front of a courtroom of people judging you. And then imagine having no guarantee about how in the future this data may be used or stored. The decision to have my case dropped was a no-brainer for self-preservation, but I now feel that the requirement to surrender one’s data is the same as being raped with impunity.

The optimism I had at the beginning of this process of “taking power back” has been replaced with a feeling of absolute helplessness. Why would other victims of rape or sexual assault come forward to make complaints knowing all their past emails, messages and photographs, however irrelevant to the case, would be subjected to similar scrutiny under this policy?

The outpouring of support from the public has given me some grounds for hope. I will not stop fighting until this policy is changed to ensure no victim ever has to choose between privacy and justice as I did

So compelling from actual rape victim making it very clear was this is about and the further violation it causes

Do people realise that false allegations really aren't the only issue here? There are also other reasons to investigate serious charges like this. Sometimes the wrong person is charged, sometimes the crime accurs in a complicated or unclear part of the law. There are hundreds of potential scenarios and reasons that it is important that crimes are actually investigated with an open mind, looking at as much evidence as posissible.
People don't have to give access to their phones. Unlike suspects, who very likely do have to give access. But, just like most other crimes, if you restrict access to something that could be relevant, you may have less evidence. And if you have less evidence, when the decision is made whether to prosecute, maybe it won't be enough. Or maybe the defence will get hold of information that seems to be to their benefit, which the prosecution could have shown to be unimportant.

I am really not understanding how it is that people think the police should magically get the same results without the same opportunities to look at the evidence. Victims are allowed to refuse access, in rape, and in most crimes - it's simply incorrect to say they can't and I don't know why people keep saying otherwise. And in rape, and in most crimes, if they do choose for whatever reason to do that, there may be poorer results.

There was a case where I live where a case collapsed because of the victim not giving all the relevant material. It tuned out that she had been corresponding with the accused afterward, and had asked him to get together again. The defence got the emails from him, though.

The problem was not the content of the emails, it was that she had actually lied and said she'd not be in contact with him again. So it raised real questions about her credibility over all, and became impossible to get a conviction.

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

What does that even mean? You want the judge to tell the jury, "Oh by the way, these defendants would really like to be found not guilty, even if they really are - not that they said so, but we can guess it to be the case."

Honey you really ought to do more than a ‘quick google search’ or perhaps get better at it, because the claim you made earlier about false accusations of rape is way off and you should ask for your comment to be removed ( I’m glad MNHQ decided to remove your disgusting initial comment on this thread )

False rape accusations are less than 1 percent

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-men-are-more-likely-to-be-raped-than-be-falsely-accused-of-rape

Victims are allowed to refuse access, in rape, and in most crimes - it's simply incorrect to say they can't and I don't know why people keep saying otherwise.

Because if isn’t a choice if they are told the case won’t proceed without violating their privacy further by taking phones indefinitely.

This is in the same realm as the medical forensic examination rape victims have the choice of going through. They don't have to do it, many don't, but the reality is by not doing it, the likelihood of conviction is reduced.

A headline of "Rape victim told case may be dropped unless they have invasive forensic examination" would also be accurate but misleading. The reason Police ask for these things to be done is not sadism or curiosity. They want convictions, they want all the evidence, they want the best for the victim.

I'm more than happy to change disclosure laws, leaving it down to individual officers complete discretion.

This whole episode has been badly framed.

Mobile phones are a core part of our lives now. They are often a vital source for evidence in many crimes. In a case which involves two or more direct interlocutors there may be need to examine all communications between them and some with third-parties.

Of course, information about a victim has to be shared within a small group. A few people will have to know more things about the victim than they would have should the case not have taken place. Their privacy will be reduced.

Of course, in this way absolute privacy and justice contradict. It may be unpleasant and regrettable but it is the least-worst option.

Of course, that information should generally remain with only those few people necessary to handle the case.

Of course there should be the utmost care and safeguards for that information.

Of course, in many cases, evidence from phones will not matter.

Of course, it will be necessary in some cases to examine the contents of a phone to establish that it is not pertinent to the case.

Of course, the Police, the prosecutors, the defence team and society need to continue to prove that they can be trusted with the victim's personal information.