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.

whether burglary victims are forced to hand over their phones and computers before the police / CPS will prosecute a burglar

A more apt comparison would be a burglary victim who has CCTV being warned that not handing over the footage might result in difficulty securing a prosecution. It would seem remiss of an investigating officer to not mention this if the victim refuses.

whether burglary victims are forced to hand over their phones and computers before the police / CPS will prosecute a burglar

A more apt comparison would be a burglary victim who has CCTV being warned that not handing over the footage might result in difficulty securing a prosecution. It would seem remiss of an investigating officer to not mention this if the victim refuses.

It’s NOT about the police not believing you because you’re not a perfect victim, it’s about proving you didn’t message all your mates and the offender after telling them all what a great time you had on the night of the incident - because that’s exactly why a big case collapsed recently. The CPS really got it in the neck for not insisting on ALL the records, including those sent by the victim to her friends, which ended up in the defence’s hands.

The people on this thread who seem to think it is completely acceptable for police to take (and keep for months on end) the phones of rape victims are spectacularly missing the point we are trying to make.

We understand there may be something on the victim’s phone which will assist the police in pursuing a prosecution. That is not in doubt. Of course the police will want to know if there has been any contact or whatever between the victim and the accused. However:

1. There is surely no need for police to keep the victim’s phone beyond a day at most

1. We know, we know because we see it all the time, that whatever is on the victim’s phone will be used to discredit her in court. Even if she were a fucking nun who had been raped by a stranger in broad daylight in the middle of the town centre I imagine the prosecution would still be trying to paint her as either some harlot who was asking for it or mentally unstable/lying. That’s their job isn’t it. To discredit the victim so the jury begin to reasonably doubt she was raped. To play on the rape myths which are so fucking prevalent up and down the country that men walk free because juries and judges believe the victim was too successful and had friends so therefore couldn’t be raped. Or, you know, had consented to being horrifically beaten and other awful things before being left to die. If there is anything at all on that phone which can be used against the victim, even if it is completely irrelevant to the moment when she was raped, it will be.

As a side note here, I cannot understand why, when the question is whether or not the victim gave consent why the victim’s behaviour on holiday with the girls 3 years ago is relevant. The mind boggles. Truly horrible.

1. No matter what is on that phone, if it doesn’t pertain to the exact few hours when the rape took place, I cannot understand why it needs to be discussed in court. Underwear passed around, the victim on the stand for cross-examination. If she is texting 5 other men, planning dates, drunk WHATEVER, she can still be raped.

She can withdraw consent 2 seconds before sex. She can withdraw consent at any time or never give it in the first place. How the fuck does what’s on her phone, or her previous sexual or medical history, or anything, help prove or disprove the case? Let’s have a look at HIS history instead. What’s his history like? Why is it so often inadmissible to discuss HIS previous charges? I cannot think of any other crimes where the victim is pretty much assumed to be lying from the get go.

Those who think this is acceptable, can you tell me what exactly you think will be on a phone which might be useful that would necessitate keeping that phone? I do understand that he is innocent until proven guilty. But even when there is an admission of guilt on the phone, or a fucking video it doesn’t seem to be enough. So if anyone could tell me what would be enough, I would love to hear it.

All I can see is that it seems nothing is ever enough in the vast majority of cases, so the victim surrenders her phone, her support network is cut off, her entire life is picked apart in court, she’s traumatised further and the arsehole who raped her walks free.

I must say, that seems like a very unfair assessment. Being proactive and taking the maximum steps to ensure that a fair verdict is secured with the maximum amount of admissible evidence is hardly something to criticise.

So, why are police not demanding to access the phone records and social media records of suspects via such consent forms?

Why the specific focus on the abused female victims?

My son was accused of rape he was 14 and was dragged out of the house in handcuffs at dawn. He was arrested and bailed not allowed to go to school and was beaten up repeatedly.
It took 3 weeks for the police to find the evidence to exonerate him (it was on the girls phone). She then admitted lying and all charges were dropped.
Nothing happened to the girl 😖 even though this was her second time of making false allegations. My son had to deal with the fall out for about 12 months until it all died down.
I do think the police should have the powers to look at someone's phone if there may be evidence on it but it should never have been made a blanket rule.
It's tricky and I'm not sure how they should handle it to be honest.

Why the specific focus on the abused female victims?

Could it be that police see this as an "easier" route to access information because police perceive women as being submissive and subordinate to their perceived male authority?

If so, this is blatant evidence of institutional sexism and misogyny.

1. There is surely no need for police to keep the victim’s phone beyond a day at most

Welcome to Austerity Britain, where new forensics cases sit in a backlog even if they should only take a short time to turn around. Which organised crime investigations, or child sexual abuse investigations, would you like to deprioritise to move the rape victim’s case up in the queue? Because that’s what it would take to get that kind of rapid turnaround for victim cooperation.

My son was accused of rape he was 14 and was dragged out of the house in handcuffs at dawn. He was arrested and bailed not allowed to go to school and was beaten up repeatedly.

I am guessing you do not live in UK.

A more apt comparison would be a burglary victim who has CCTV being warned that not handing over the footage might result in difficulty securing a prosecution. It would seem remiss of an investigating officer to not mention this if the victim refuses.

Sorry Gronky - your example proves the point. Wanting the CCTV footage is a proportionate response. Removing the burglary victim's phone, computer etc to be assured that there has been no communication with the perpetrator in the last 5 / 10 / 15 years is disproportionate and treats the burglary victim as a potential criminal. Which is precisely what is happening to women alleging rape.

SingaSonga - there's an easy solution

Get rid of the hundreds of thousands of hours & £££ investigating hate crimes and the related police funding / attending conferences run by political lobby groups. That would sort it I suspect.

Your DS was 14?
Had he had conseual sex?

One case of lying does not constitute a reason for denying all rape victims the proper and sensitive treatment she she expect as a matter of course.

How can anyone defend male rapists and victim-blaming women like this, in the full knowledge of the horror of this crime and the continued myths?

Why doesn't anyone think that one story of an experience constitutes the need to ride across everything else.

Are you suggesting we resurrect and promote further myths and lies, based on the rare case?

Many women also drop genuine rape charges for many reasons. It's notoriously difficult to face and too much for many, but let's big up the the rare lie

Welcome to Austerity Britain, where new forensics cases sit in a backlog even if they should only take a short time to turn around.

And you have justified why no-one's phone or social media records should be subject to forensic investigation until such time as when they can be concluded within 24 hours.

A suspect can only be detained for 24 hours [subject to extension granted by a warrant approved by a magistrate to a maximum of 96 hours.] .

Police are content to say that people's lives are conducted online these days so why does that 24 hours restriction not also apply to people's 'online lives'?

It's because of the Liam Allen case.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/liam-allan-met-police-rape-accusation-false-evidence-disclosure-arrest-mistake-detectives-a8184916.html

He actually capamapigned for this, because his victim supposedly texted a friend saying "she wanted it", but there could be also sorts of reason why victims do that. Usually it's to pretend they had some sort of control over the situation when they didn't.

Read this post about a woman who exaplained why she texted her rapist afterwards and why she was in denail about it being rape for so many years:

therumpus.net/2018/06/all-the-reasons-i-texted-my-rapist/

Removing the burglary victim's phone, computer etc to be assured that there has been no communication with the perpetrator in the last 5 / 10 / 15 years is disproportionate and treats the burglary victim as a potential criminal.

Where is it indicated that this is the intended purpose? I disagree with the phone itself being retained but agree fully that the opportunity and a system by which a victim can have the contents of their phone securely recorded for the purposes of providing evidence should be offered.

And you have justified why no-one's phone or social media records should be subject to forensic investigation until such time as when they can be concluded within 24 hours.

Ah, you’re a libertarian who thinks that devices are people.

Ah, you’re a libertarian who thinks that devices are people

No .. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of UK police, who are more than happy to state that people's lives are conducted online these days but are not content to apply this dictum to people's online lives when ot comes to the media of those "online lives".

Maybe UK PACE law needs to adjust to this to facilitate such circumstance?

I do understand about lack of funding. It’s bloody ridiculous the way our public services are expected to operate with no money and making cuts left right and centre. I wish there was more focus on exactly what the consequences are of defunding vital services like forensics, but I sadly suspect the current government would use it as a reason to sell the police service off to the highest bidder. I don’t know what the answer is. I wish victims didn’t have to go through such a horrific ordeal and then go through a second ordeal to try and secure justice. I think sometimes we do need to take a step back and say, hang on, why exactly do we do this? Does it help? What is the potential impact of this action? I’m not convinced this is a practice which will ever help victims of rape. Just one more obstacle to overcome.

Do you understand that devices are not converted by custody time limits*, and that the police aren’t holding them for fun but due to lack of resources?

*These aren’t just a civil liberties gift btw, they are also about saving money. A LOT of problems come down to austerity. Don’t get me started on legal aid cuts...

@sarahtancredi 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?

Completely agree. If anything, there’s more reason for it to have been written by someone else (trying to get the attacker off the hook!)

Argh my blood is just boiling tonight over all this and the fucking shitty patriarchal world we live in!

Sadly nothing is being 'offered Gronky.
Women are being told that if they want their rape allegation pursued then unlike any other crime, they must hand over all their devices for as many months / years that the police wish before the crime will be dealt with. Discriminatory and yet again, treating victims as the guilty party.

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?

It’s not easy to fake that if you do forensics on the device. That’s why the police want to put them through forensics so they have an airtight case...

I was once told that it takes as much investigative work to prove someone innocent (no further action) as it does to gather a case to charge them. In the old days, there was no digital evidence so the cops just applied prejudice and bias when there were no witnesses. Now there’s potentially lots of evidence, but it’s “problematic” for them to investigate it.

Do you understand that devices are not converted by custody time limits, and that the police aren’t holding them for fun but due to lack of resources?*

But, if 'people's lives' are conducted online, as police are so content to state when it suits them, how come 'people's lives' can be suspended for months and months while police detain the media that express those 'online lives'?

My point is that perhaps such detention should be subject to "custody time limits".

How can police officers justify detaining a woman's mobile phone and laptop for beyond six months as is currently the case with one victim of online abuse?

Women are being told that if they want their rape allegation pursued then unlike any other crime,

Yet again, this misreporting is being repeated to the point of gaslighting. 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.

I would also like to ask anyone repeatedly stating words to the effect that the only way for a prosecution to proceed is for the victim to provide access to their electronics, whether they've even considered the long term effects of this misrepresentation, in terms of victims coming forwards and, if they have, why they feel this is appropriate?