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.

I can absolutely see that in some cases it might be helpful for victims of a crime to have their phone examined for evidence. I can. I just can’t see how, given the disgracefully low rates of successful prosecution for rape, it’s going to make any difference for a rape victim.

What we know about rape cases is that you can be the wrong sort of victim, not emotional enough, too successful, have friends, not have screamed, screamed wrong, worn knickers, gone on a date, had a drink, had consensual sex with his friend and on and on and on. The main outcome I can see for this is that even fewer victims of rape are going to come forward.

for anyone who has been through it. I’m supporting a friend at the moment and it is just the most appalling thing. The way she has been treated by the police from start to finish is a total fucking disgrace and I am so angry.

It all comes down to juries though, and juries are made up of random members of the public.

Police don't get to say what did or didn't happen, both sides say it in court and unfortunately because of our hugely misogynist culture juries very often choose not guilty.

With this being the case, it isn't in the public interest to prosecute cases with no hope of conviction. The mn feminist board knows that of course its possible to be raped and then continue messaging and meeting up with the attacker.

But juries won't convict in those cases and the prosecution may well be hopeless.

It's the public perception in general that needs to change for there to be an increased chance of justice for victims.

Friends Dd had to hand her phone over, it's been two years since she was raped there was a witness who chased guy away and he still hasn't even been arrested or charged!

Surely the phone is only circumstantial evidence anyway - they're not surgically attached to you, other people can type on them (as the person above who's attacker's phone evidence was discarded proves).

Why do they need to keep the phone at all? All of these messaging systems allow backups, they could simply go through messages, take the evidence in whatever approved form it needs to be, and hand it back - no more than an afternoon of whoever's investigating the case's time. Keeping the hardware is pointless, and just harms the victim more.

Personally, I think that before the police saw my phone, my lawyer would - I'm not au fait with how the police work, or the justice system, so just like if I was being interviewed I'd want my lawyer present, I'd want my lawyer to OK the police looking at my phone. I don't think the police are necessarily on my side, and I need an expert to keep them on track. I'm lucky though, I'd be able to afford that. Plenty of people couldn't.

I hate to say it because I'm not a violent person - but I'd deal it's the rapist myself as the police wouldn't. Shame I'd even have to consider it.

This has been the case for a while.. victims have been talking about this for years. People haven't been listening to survivors/victims about this.

Social media accounts, too, they want access. Doesn't seem to happen for other crimes.

I know there have been cases where the victim has been found to have made false claims proven by phone messages - but surely this will be seen on the phone of the other party?

I know of a case where the exonerating message from the supposed victim was to a female friend/colleague. Sadly, mentally ill and personality disordered people do exist.

It seems that media reporting maybe due to this guidance from the CPS
which was published last year, July 2018. Quiet day on the news desk ?

www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/legal_guidance/Disclosure-reasonable-lines-of-enquiry-and-communications-evidence.pdf

SocFem19 It does happen for other crimes. The request isn't just for Rape, it's for all victims of crime.

Plus noone is required to hand over their phone.

The Guardian ran a feature on it last year, Sawdustformypony and SistersUncut actually prioritised women for once with a campaign about it earlier this year.

The Guardian ran a feature on it last year, Sawdustformypony and SistersUncut actually prioritised women for once with a campaign about it earlier this year.

Just had a look at SistersUncut website and searched for 'communications' and 'phones' but there were no relevant results. Did they take issue with the CPS guidance to your knowledge ?

I posted a comment on a very similar thread to this quite a while ago, questioning what we would prefer happen?

Women give a statement with their version on events. The man disagrees. How (other than just accepting the woman’s statement as the truth) do we want police to ‘investigate’ this? What sort of investigation do we deem appropriate?

Yes it should be handled sensitively and with dignity but honestly, having been in that situation myself I don’t see how this process could ever feel sensitive or dignified. Nothing about that time in your life feels that way.

So if they can’t ask for your phone, or your clothes, and there no (or an unreliable) witness. Then what do we want them to do?

The legal system has to be a two way street, they can’t just believe you because you’re a woman because some women (for a multitude of reasons) do lie. The legal system fails people in many aspects beyond sexual assault too. But as of yet nobody has a better alternative.

(Personally I think that we’ll eventually all end up wearing the human equivalent of dashcams)

In response to my comment on the earlier thread one poster replied something along the lines of ‘Well I’d rather a few innocent men be punished than lots of guilty ones get away with it’ - This is dangerous- VERY dangerous but unless we fix the system (rather than just poking holes in it) then its where we’re heading!

I imagine so, as they were challenging it. I haven't read the CPS guidance. I thought it was Sisters Uncut but it might have been another similar group.

We have heard from at least one poster on this thread how location evidence gathered from the victims phone helped secure a conviction
In that case, it was a man who was the victim.

We have also heard of a horrific case where a women recorded her own rape and her accuser walked free, because he said it was consensual BDSM.

''The intrusive gathering of data about possible rape victims is unlawful and risks preventing them coming forward, according to London’s victims’ commissioner.''

''Claire Waxman from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) has written to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) saying victims were routinely being told their cases would be dropped unless they signed consent forms that gave defence lawyers and their alleged attacker access to intimate details of their lives that could be revealed in court.

“Victims are very concerned that they are being asked for so much sensitive material – not only their phones, but also past medical history, their social services records and more,” said Waxman.''

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/data-gathering-may-deny-victims-access-to-justice

@Honeydukes92
I agree with and support all that you have said.

The police investigation has to include all reasonable lines of enquiry that may prove or disprove a persons involvement in crime. They cannot ignore evidence that may be on a victim's phone, but this does not mean they are going to go rooting around through every message or photo on a phone on a fishing expedition to try and discredit a victim. However, if a phone is downloaded the CPS may disclose this unused material to the defence lawyers who may want to use it in court. The police can't ignore a victim's phone if there is likely to be evidence on there - this might include proving the crime. Like previously mentioned location data etc, or if the suspect raises a defence in interview, such a messages between the victim and the suspect, then the police cannot just ignore this, they have to look into it as a reasonable line of enquiry as it is their job. This applies to all cases where phones may contain evidence. not just rape.
Suspect's phones for rape cases will most likely always be seized for download under Section 19 of PACE as a matter of course, without their consent. I'm sure the article doesn't mention that.
I am speaking from experience of the legal and criminal justice system.

“Victims are very concerned that they are being asked for so much sensitive material – not only their phones, but also past medical history, their social services records and more,” said Waxman.''

Fucking hell. A victim's medical history is not responsible for a man raping her.
This absolutely is an attempt to victim blame, or frame women as false accusers.

Yy datun
How is it a man can walk free as the admission of rape may not have been from him as someone else could have used his phone.

But messages from the victim confessing to it being a false allegation taken as truth?

Why couldn't that have been written by someone else too?

A few years back I worked with a woman who had approached the Police about a blood relative Uncle raping her in his house when she was 15. He admitted it (but claimed she was willing). There came to light a letter between the Uncle and the Mother referring to the child complaining to the Mother of the Uncle assaulting her from the age of 4. The CPS chose not to prosecute as the girl then made some poor decisions about sexual relationships some years later (in her 20's which she had discussed with the Police when she reported him aged 30). The CPS said they felt a jury might not find her a 'sympathetic witness due to her 'character'.

Why would she even have been put on the stand when he admitted it?
Sex with his 15 year old niece ('willing' or not?)
I dont understand this???
It seems that the Victim can be at fault. Before, during and years after.

I worked for some time as a Counsellor for a charity supporting the teenage victims of CSA. They often asked me if they should 'go to the Police'. Internally, every time, I said: 'No' as I had so much experience of them being 'abused' a 2nd time by our so-called 'justice system'.

Fucking hell. But why would anyone actually hand their phone over? In that situation I would take the sd card out and "accidentally" drop my phone down the toilet rather than give it to the police to trawl thru. But then I wasn't brought up to comply with the authorities..!
And this:
Well that's a green light to any would be rapist. Start chatting someone up, get a bit flirty on the phone, and then rape them with impunity.
X2

The CPS said they felt a jury might not find her a 'sympathetic witness due to her 'character'.

It's horrific that judging whether something is a crime is dependent upon the character of the victim, not the fucking perpetrator.

I'm sure the CPS are very familiar with people who will judge women unfavourably, on a purely misogynistic basis. But it's up to them to educate juries, specifically in rape cases if necessary. And judges.

It should be automatic. This is such a fucking low bar.

Speaking from experience of being sexually assaulted by 3 boys from my school when I was 16, 10 years ago this coming Saturday in fact. I had to give the police my phone, so did the people I'd contacted after it happened (I was walking home alone, so after I text and phoned a my mum and a friend).

Datun yes. And was her 'character' dodgy when she was 4? or 15? or mid 20's? its all so horribly victim blaming. Can you only be raped if you have a 'good' character? wear the right clothes? have a nice 'clean' phone? Its all part of the same dynamic, imo.

A further thought: given there is a time limit of 24 hours [able to be extended to max 96 hours] imposed for holding a suspect for interrogation, surely there should also be a similar time limit imposed for holding victim's / suspect's technology for interrogation?

JackyHolyoake. It's voluntary.

The reasons behind it are because rape cases have collapsed due to disclosure issues.