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.

EXACTLY @deepwatersolo

The issue nickynacky is that the fact of losing a phone is going to act as a strong deterrent to a woman on benefits in reporting a rape.

It's quite obvious surely?

If you can't afford to lose your phone there's no point in reporting your rape.

I am intetesting in cut off.

Does the phone need to be present in cases of rape only? Rape with accompanying gbh? Rape with murder? What if the phone can't be found. Assumption is she ditched it as she's lying?

Etc etc

Working class low income women getting an even rawer deal yet again.

What I find fascinating is that I remember the reporting of the cases collapsing last year due to defence not having info.

All reports I read focused on rape cases that had collapsed, a couple put a foot note that this was an issue across the board not just for rape.

The focus on rape cases angered me as it seemed like totally biased reporting.

And now as a response we have this. Again, rape is focused on. None of the articles I have seen refer to this for other crimes at all. Even though the same problem is there.

So my conclusion

This is to act as a deterrent to women and girls in reporting rape, and that is the intention.

Watched porn?
Exchanged pics?
Seeing lots of men?
Reading steamy stories?

Sorry love you're off poor character no jury will convict you.

This comes after met boss essentially saying she was not intetested in doing anything about 'date rape' as its hard to get a prosecution.

All of this is expensive to investigate and sadly society and authorities don't really give a shit.

Intetesting last night on local news they ate looking for a man who had abducted and raped 2 women. I was surprised. Had they been through their phones properly? And then. Male witness. OHO that's why they're taking out seriously.

All a bit biblical really. Or reminiscent of attitude in counties where women are more or less property.

Jessica Eaton has written a blog;

''Reason 5: One guy made a complaint against a woman and the whole fucking system changes but thousands of women suffer injustice and nothing changes for decades''

Reason 6: How come it’s so easy to manipulate innocent victims into handing over their phones but it takes us months or years for police to get hold of the phones of traffickers, rapists and child abusers?

Reason 7: There is nothing in law which states that the police can blackmail you into giving over your phone and you are entitled to representation and protection from crime anyway

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

@TheInebriati

Posted about the benefits issue before i read the thread so x posted with you.

I have no idea if this is widespread, and not read about it in any coverage, but have also seen a request from the police to pass on disciplinary issues or details of 'sexualised behaviour' on the part of a victim. We were understandably horrified. There was no outline of how this could be defined and we were instead deeply concerned about a young woman who must have been traumatised and how having all her personal details passed over by those who had a duty of care towards her could make her feel. I've heard of cases where this could include counselling notes, though not personally seen that. How would anyone feel having your most personal thoughts on your rape potentially passed onto the defence team?

That implicit suggestion about police forces being required to replace a phone, from Nicknacky, could solve the problem of impact on communications. I wonder if this new law will include a requirement for forces to do that. No? Goodness, does that mean that possibly all ramifications and implications for ordinary people have not been thought out, and reasonable adjustments will not be made? Gosh, who'd have thought it, knee jerk legislation that will take rights away. From any particular section of the population? Just women. Really building trust here aren;t they.

The police requested my counselling notes which were made available to the cps and idk where they are now

I don't think this is new really. Around 5 years ago my daughter was raped, I posted about it on here at the time. The police took her phone, her new clothes (which they destroyed), she refused counselling at SARC because they would have shared her notes. They went through all her social media, her messages to friends before and after the event, relevant and not. Digital strip search is pretty accurate. It was awful. She was 15. It took a year to get to court, I can't remember how long they had her phone for but long enough to feel a lot like a punishment to a teenager. The person responsible was convicted of a lesser offence in the end (plea bargain).

I can absolutely understand why people are put off reporting. The whole process was horrific and all the way through, DD, who was a child, was treated as though she was to blame, to be punished, she suffered for having the strength to report it. It is an awful awful system in which I have very little faith.

pickleC the guardian article I posted was about exactly that. The woman who refused to hand over her 'privacy' says this is why...the detailed contact and thoughts with the counsellor, which she could not bear to share with her rapist just so she could secure justice, but, you know, very unlikely

Mandatorymongoose
That is so awful - and sadly is a very commonplace experience of so many young women. Multiply abused by the very institutions that are meant to protect them.

Mandatorymongoose
There should be done recourse for court raping this way. It's the only way one can label the dispicable way that survivors of these awful sexual assaults are defiled.

No respect, stripped bare and left broken is what help the legal system is. Literally defilers.

I listened to a survivor late last night telling of it not being the rape that caused her PTSD but the court treatment of her through such a distressing process. Genuine horror story.

Mandatorymongoose I am so sorry, I hope your daughter and your family are coping ok.

This thread, including the contribution from a police officer, just make me glad I did not report my rape and I would not do so if it happened again. The system is not fit for purpose, it does not care about victims and does everything possible to give men who rape a way to get out of being held responsible. After Ched Evans, I knew I would never report any future assault and I would advise friends and family not to either.

Harriet Harman has raised in Hoc
twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/1122944019389145089?s=09
From what she says the form says info will be given to the suspect.

From what she says the form says info will be given to the suspect

But what she doesn't say, - misleading Parliament ?? - is that the form states that only unused material - i.e. relevant information that is not used by the CPS, but which may undermine the CPS's case or support the defense case, is disclosed.

The only organisation that is investigating crime is the Police. IF the Police discover that there is such evidence as above, then it must be right that it is disclosed to the defence.

i.e. relevant information that is not used by the CPS, but which may undermine the CPS's case or support the defense case, is disclosed.

I'm not quite getting this sawdust. Does the victim's knickers come into this category?

I'm not quite getting this sawdust. Does the victim's knickers come into this category?

As I understand it from an earlier post see above, the evidence of the knickers was probably introduced by the CPS to show the pattern of blood staining.

You are accusing harriet harman of misleading parliament?

That is an extremely strong accusation.

I raise it as a possibility. You'd think she would have read the document prior to an address to the house.

It doesn’t help that rags like the Daily Mail have without fail a story on their homepage about a woman caught lying about rape every day when these make up less than 1% of cases.

This cherry picking leads it to seem like a much more prevalent issue which then leads to juries not believing women. They have this rapey agenda and it’s disgusting.

I tweet at them all the time about this and have emailed them. Julie Bindell did a good Guardian article about this.

Id urge more people here to contact DM and complain about this because it’s absolutely disgusting the biggest news paper in the world is misrepresenting this issue is for some kind of sick agenda. This kind of thing trickles down where victims aren’t believed.

As I understand it from an earlier post see above, the evidence of the knickers was probably introduced by the CPS to show the pattern of blood staining.

I thought the CPS was content with a diagram, but the defence insisted on the underwear, because they were 'sexy'.

Which is what I'm talking about.

I thought the CPS was content with a diagram, but the defence insisted on the underwear, because they were 'sexy'.

I'm merely referring back to the post by Erythronium yesterday at 15:21 where he or she pasted in this...

"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."

As I mentioned in my posts at the time, I know little of the case but have no reason to cast any doubt on it.

sawdust

The fact that the defence used the underwear as a means to discredit the victim, is illustrating my point, that underwear, which is irrelevant, is used to discredit a victim.

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."

According to the rules that you quoted, the defence can use material from the victim that the prosecution deem completely irrelevant. Like knickers.

But you appear to be saying that the rules are fair.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this?