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.

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

I feel I am missing something here. How many rape victims would continue if they were told that any texts or emails they had sent will definitely be part of the defence, even if they have not originated from the victim? That they will be read out in court. And that if the prosecution is unprepared, it won't go well.

Most victims will understand that even if they don't tell the police, the rapist will.

There has to be a really tiny number of victims who, having grasped that the information will be revealed in public anyway, won't then go on to supply details, surely?

I'm still confused. Is there another crime in which the conflicting and traumatized feelings of the victim, recorded on their private device, are possible mitigating evidence that has relevance in court?

If I am burgled, and send some texts saying I am feeling pretty sanguine about it, does would that be evidence admissable to show that the burglar didn't really break into my house and steal my things?

Random extra 'does' in that post, please mentally edit...

For anyone who missed it, Jessica Eaton's blog that Datun referenced earlier really nails the issues. She makes so many good points but I've copied one below that really resonates:

Can ANYONE explain to me why the professionals working in CSE, trafficking and child abuse are being told by police forces that there is nothing more they can do to disrupt perpetrators and that they can’t possibly seize phones and iPads without evidence or warrants? How the hell have you managed to utilise tactics against victims that you can’t even use against child traffickers? How have the police managed to convince other professions that change is slow and cumbersome, will take years and will be hard to achieve – when this has been turned around in a matter of months? How has blackmail been signed off as a tactic against victims?

Men's wishes prioritised over women's safety every single bloody time.

victimfocus.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/7-reasons-why-i-dont-support-police-checking-victims-mobile-phones-in-sexual-violence-cases/

So what strikes me as unfair about this practice is that the police are gaining data that is completely irrelevant to the offence.

This is it.

There are only so many communication apps one can have. An afternoon with the victim, in a room, with a lawyer while she shows you would surely be sufficient.

It's absolutely crazy that they will be able to look at, as Jessica says, all your online shopping, your finance apps, texts to your mum, your emails, your photo album, taping yourself singing in the shower, if you've watched porn, etc etc.

God it makes my heart start thumping just thinking of it. Having coppers rake over the most intimate parts of your life, with the express intention of testing your credibility?

Jesus. Who would go through that after being raped???

I’ve read this entire thread. It’s clear that the prejudice shown here is the antithesis of a fair trial. Fortunately, it’s a prejudice that is not widespread.

No Sawdust, you've missed your own bias.

What should happen is that phones are looked at where there is reasonable expectation that it will provide information relevant to the case.

What actually happens is police demand the victim hand over all their mobile devices for an unlimited amount of time, without any idea if there is relevant material there or not.

And its not just uppity women here who think this is wrong. Max Hill QC, head of the CPS also think this policy is wrong and said it wouldn't happen.

And its not just uppity women here who think this is wrong. Max Hill QC, head of the CPS also think this policy is wrong and said it wouldn't happen.

Good lord when women's underwear, or even the skirt they happen to be wearing is mitigation of rape, of course stuff on one's phone is going to be used against one.

Good lord when women's underwear, or even the skirt they happen to be wearing is mitigation of rape, of course stuff on one's phone is going to be used against one.

This.

I will never forget the case of Rehtaeh Parson (in Canada I think). She was at a party in a school mate's house with her friend. Her friend decided to go home, Rehtaeh decided to stay with the cool boys and drink some more.

The end of it was rape. And the guys who did it had the temerity to proudly show the video of the rape around in school. Rehtaeh was relentlessly bullied for it. The video showed an apparently unconscious woman, who was raped. The identity of the boys was unambigous on the footage, as was the location, as was the fact they were raping a female who could not consent.

When Rehtaeh went to the police they seized the footage from the boys' phones. But ultimately the police decided they could not press charges. Because, they said, Rehtaeh was by her own account drunk and could not remember much, she could not be sure she had actually been raped (!), right? And as for the footage: Her face was not visible, so it could have been someone else. (Of course no potential alternative woman was ever identified and the whole f*ing school knew who was on the footage. The boys had bragged about it after all).

Rehtaeh changed school and ultimately commited suicide.

In a world where this is possible, I know what to think of this victim-phone-download shit.

This is a short thread from a woman responsible for looking through a victims phone on behalf of the defence. .

1. Lots in press and on twitter today about police and defence having access to complainant’s phones. Well often I am the one who gets that defence access - often only me who has the full phone access and not solicitors/barristers and certainly not defendants

1. I will then have a v important job to find RELEVANT evidence.....

• messages talking about enjoying having sex after an alleged rape.
• inaccurate timings of when visits took place (previous day) by hours.
• calls occurring including attempted calls to persons in case.
• messages sent to others discussing alleged offence.
• pictures.
• google searches.
• location information - where person was at time of interest.

All of the above have been v relevant in past cases I have dealt with including several dropped cases and not guilty verdicts.

1. Relevance is a difficult concept. I often have issues with police about what I will be allowed to look at - that will be everything because I don’t know what I will find until I find it! I have a professional job to do as an expert. I am impartial and work for court.

1. What is not relevant? Anything not relating to the case. I certainly wouldn’t be exhibiting anything about messages to others, pictures, where they have been and with whom unless it is absolutely relevant to what has been alleged to have happened.

twitter.com/SamRaincock/status/1122853713478074368

What is not relevant? Anything not relating to the case. I certainly wouldn’t be exhibiting anything about messages to others, pictures, where they have been and with whom unless it is absolutely relevant to what has been alleged to have happened.

Oh dear lord. But this is the whole POINT.

A woman's knickers are not relevant.

But the defence will make them so.

Therefore they are relevant.

It's not this woman judging what is and isn't relevant, she is judging what can be spun as relevant.

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

It is a choice, but like all chpices, effects come out of it.

If you choose not to give police access to a source of evidence, they do not magically get access to that access anyway. When a decision is made to prosecute a crime, it is based on whether or not there is any or enough evidence. So yes, by logical necessity, if police do not have evidence that might exist on your phoe, it is a possibility there will not be enough evidence.

That isn't a situation caused by the police or that they have any power to fix.

It is no different than if I complain about identity fraud, but choose not to give police access to my private records and online information. That is absolutely my choice. It is also very likely that they will not have enough evidence to go forward. That is not because they are being jerks. And telling me "if we cannot look at this, we may not have information that will be important to the case" is not some kind of inappropriate pressure. If they did not tell people this, they would complain, and rightly so.

It really seems like you don't understand how the police build a case or what happens in a court. You said above that the police should tell the suspect that they could be damaged by not giving them evidence. You know they do tell them that if they withhold information that they use in court, it could damage them - n fact they are legally obliged to tell them that. And you can bet their lawyers are telling them that if they withhold evidence or information that the prosecution finds it could very easily decide their fate.

Rape is illegal.

Slavery is illegal.

But there are still loads of slaves.

And there is still loads of rape.

Slavery goes largely unpunished.

And rape is largely unpunished.

Slavery is effectively legal.

Rape is effectively legal.

Effectively, RAPE IS now LEGAL in the UK.

I feel I am missing something here. How many rape victims would continue if they were told that any texts or emails they had sent will definitely be part of the defence, even if they have not originated from the victim? That they will be read out in court. And that if the prosecution is unprepared, it won't go well.

So, it seems that the woman in that case thought or hoped that the defence would not have the information. The prosecution was totally screwed up, and this was a major, high profile case with a lot of media attention and multiple victims. I am not sure if she was a fool, or they didn't give her good advice. I kind of suspect the former - I had the strong impression that of the victims in the case, she might well be there more because she was interested in the media exposure than anything else. Ad I think had she given them the emails they might have not had her as one of the people involved in the case, and just kept to the more reliable witnesses.

It's not this woman judging what is and isn't relevant

Yes it is, as she is the person that decides what is relevant i.e. only that which supports the defence's case or undermines the Crown's case. The rest is not disclosed to the defence.

sawdustformypony

Yes, but we know the defence will use something that isn't relevant. Like underwear.

Therefore she has to deem something relevant, when it isn't.

All of the above have been v relevant in past cases I have dealt with including several dropped cases and not guilty verdicts.

Ways to find rapists innocent part 4382867543

And I'm with Jessica Eaton. Suddenly victims' phones are something that the police can get, otherwise they are claiming they are being stymied in terms of evidence gathering.

How come they can't do that for sex traffickers, Internet trolls, and pimps?

Caroline Farrow was told that although they found one of the people responsible for harassing her, the fact that they were in a group of eight or nine meant they couldn't go after them. Why not? Five minutes with some forensic investigation into this technology would have sorted it.

Why can't they do that? Where is the motivation for that to happen?

Why can't they instruct every single judge in the land, and all juries in rape trials, on rape myths? Actually start educating people that no, knickers are not relevant.

Where is the stomach for that?

Because it is that sort of information that would make the procuring of dodgy 'evidence' frowned upon. It's that sort of enlightenment that might make these trials reflect reality, rather than bloody sexist spin.

Yes, but we know the defence will use something that isn't relevant. Like underwear.

Therefore she has to deem something relevant, when it isn't.

Your reference to underwear is I believe from the Ulster Rugby Rape case ? I don't know what relevance that had to the case, I didn't follow it - but I would have thought it had some relevance. So, maybe the defendant had said in his statement that he and the complainant had had a conversation about them say, re: say something along the lines of how sexy they were and that this was during their consensual sex. Who knows...I really don't know the case. But if something like that was part of the defense case, then it's only fair that they should be seen by the jury.

sawdust

There is a prevailing opinion amongst people in general that what a woman does can be responsible for a man's actions.

Particularly when it comes to them being raped.

This woman will have to trawl for evidence that might be used to affect juries who think that skirts are relevant to the reason why a man is raping a woman.

It's back to front. It's arse about face. It's treating the symptoms, not the problem.

The money, resources, and time needs to be spent on educating uninformed jury members why these things are irrelevant.

That way, a random woman won't have to trawl through a victim's Amazon purchasing habits, because the defence will be unable to use it as mitigation.

That's some mad (and slightly pornographic) speculation you've got going on there sawdust. Victims' underwear is often held up in court because it contains forensic evidence, as happened in the Ulster trial:

"Such was the complexity of the blood marks on the garment, it was determined that the exhibit itself should be brought back before the court, rather than relying on diagrams and photographs."

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-olding-s-semen-found-on-alleged-victim-s-clothes-1.3400684

The defence then decided to use that opporunity to persuade the jury that a certain type of underwear can be proof of consent, whatever the victim herself might be saying:

"In her final address, defense barrister Elizabeth O'Connell asked the jurors to take into account the underwear the teenager was wearing.

"Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front," she said, according to the Irish Examiner."

edition.cnn.com/2018/11/14/europe/ireland-underwear-rape-acquittal-scli-intl/index.html

You have to wonder exactly how much fuss the defence made over the photos in order to ensure the underwear got to court.

The words "What was she wearing?" spoken to a jury should instantly sound like "I'm a sexist arse who has no case".

Likewise any discussion of a woman's past sex life, sexual habits, previous consent, and anything else that has zero affect on a man's decision to rape her.

Why wouldn't those people with their giant mansion set in the middle of beautiful rolling acres see that it was an open invitation for robbers to come in and steal their priceless art collection?

''Mother of teenager who took her own life after rape trial 'appalled' by girl's thong being used against her in Irish case''

''Thousands of women have shared images of their underwear on Twitter, with the hashtag #this is not consent, following a case in Cork in which a lawyer used an alleged rape victim’s choice of underwear to argue that she consented to sex.''

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/19/mother-teenager-took-life-rape-trial-appalled-girls-thong-used/

Well said Datun

I lost friends, if you can call them that, because I reported the mutual "friend" that assaulted me in my sleep. They tried to claim that it was my fault for leading him on... i.e. by being friends with him when I knew he fancied me (not that I need to include this FYI, but I had made it clear verbally and via text several times I was happy with my BF and was not interested in him at all!)