Rape cases dropped if victims refuse to hand over phones

[Dervel]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-49072302

How did anyone get convicted before the advent of phones? This is such an egregious violation of a right to privacy.

No I’m not watching YouTube videos about cults thanks. You have no supporting evidence for the specific claim that false accusations of rape are high. Because there is none.

Juries convict because the alleged victim is tearful and appears genuinely distressed.

The conviction rate for rape is shamefully low. They do not convict because of tears, the suggestion is insulting to both victims and juries. You are really behaving bizarrely.

seems that some forces download everything, included deleted items from many years previously. And it can be these past items that are used to discredit complainants

This is what worries me

@arranbubonicplague that may be the case that they have to download the entire content of the device. It's probably not as simple as extracting specific data from it. But they aren't allowed to go through everything with a view of "using it to discredit", only to search specific things that's consented to on the consent form.

Yes while it did make me feel slightly uncomfortable, I had absolutely nothing to hide. So I was more than happy to give this info.

I did have to extract data from Facebook myself as they can't use screenshots as they can be edited. It is possible for the force to do this themselves by me handing over passwords etc. But that way didn't work for me so I had to request the release of info from Facebook. They sent me the entire back catalogue of my conversation histories. I then sent them conversations from a witness and defendant. They went back through the whole lot which is years worth. Again, didn't bother me.

Does anyone remember the Ched Evans case? He had an actual team of people look for that poor girls previous sexual partners, then used their testimony to say she was consensual, based on things those men said she often said during sex. For fucks sake. That’s how his conviction was overturned. Because of words she said while enjoying sex with other men years previous.

So yeah, I have a fucking problem if they go through anything that is not about that exact night of the alleged rape. None of it is relevant. I would not trust them with my phone, no.

^Just out of curiousity, would you have to hand your phone over if you were raped by a stranger? Or just if it was someone you knew prior to being assaulted?

I can't see how handing your phone over if you were attacked by a stranger would help anyone.^

Yes I would. It comes down to me having nothing to hide. There could be conversations to people leading up to that event by a stranger that could lead to being used as evidence. It's about people you may have contacted before and after the assault, regardless of it being a stranger or someone you knew. If I want someone prosecuted for raping me, I'll do everything in my power to give them everything they needed. It's about having confidence in my own defence.

I meant would it be necessary to hand over your phone if you were raped by a stranger...

Depends @HugsAreMyDrugs - I suppose if there was doubt over whether you knew each other previously* then maybe. Or if there was doubt over your / the rapist's location then phone data could be very useful if it could prove you were in the same place at the same time.

*This is not to say that knowing each other previously means in a sexual manner nor that knowing each other previously means the rape isn't rape. But cases have been won and lost on the basis of such questions. If one of the prosecutions main points is that it was an assault by a stranger and yet it can be shown that there was a previous acquaintance between the two parties then the defence will rip apart the prosecutions argument and cast doubt over everything else PDQ. The converse is also true of course and if a defendant claims they've never seen you in their life and yet you can prove a previous acquaintance from a phone then the prosecution will rip the defence apart PDQ.

@HugsAreMyDrugs I felt I had answered your question.

Digital forensics has been in use for decades and is already being employed for many other crimes such as drug dealing and paedophilia etc.

According to bbc piece today, 12 yo girl was told hand over phone even though man admitted it.

That shows something else going on than genuine evidence search.

Women also told if any content reveals anything criminal they will be prosecuted. Over last 7 years or something. Buying drugs? Bingo prosecute her, also dodgy witness, character assassination.

This is about discouraging women and girls from reporting and is latest in similar reporting about police. They don't have the resources. They want women girls to go back to keeping quiet.

Dervel in the case you refer to the evidence was on the defendants phone (which exonerated him eventually). The issue was the police had took it when he was arrested (and they or the CPS, can’t recall exactly who) and went to great lengths to prevent it being disclosed. It was only because he had a shit hot lawyer that it came out.

At the end of the day a phone may have evidence. I think the issue is more to do with how all the info is treated and what is deemed relevant or not. Shouldn’t be a free for all but if there is concrete stuff then it should be used. Appreciate the point about it being on the others phone but like I said they don’t have it then. The police do

What reasonable justification is there in seizing searching phone of 12yo rape victim, where rapist has admitted it?

None that I can see.

In case there are incriminating messages from the defendant I suppose. If in this case the child knew their attacker and they were in contact with them then there could also be other things he could be charged for. The more evidence the CPS has, the better and it just comes down to that.

Also, if the defendant decided to withdraw his guilty plea, the CPS would still need further evidence to be able to prosecute them.

I'm really struggling to see the issue with it.

We are actually at the point where I believe rape is to all intents and purposes legal.

Absolutly correct.
The law's in the enforcement, as much as the proof's in the pudding.

There will be something in most peoples phones that will put a jury off them. People say flippant, unguarded things to their close friends and family that don't necessarily reflect the people they are or the actions they take in real life.

Therefore, you are effectively told to hand over your phone (for no conviction) or don't hand over your phone (for no conviction).

Like voting rights in the 1960s deep south ... there's a law in place, but the enforcement of that law makes it rotten to the core.

I don't see what the issue is.
Well one issue is the length of time the phones are kept for, because this impacts women who claim Universal Credit and other benefits that can only be accessed online.

It’s innocent joky comments or pictures that would concern me

My dd (17) had some pictures of a costume she wanted to wear which has a certain connotation that she didn’t realise

Its also a very ‘sexy’ costume, i have no doubts whatsoever that if she was attacked that the defense would use those photos

I actually feel bad now that i started the pictures off on her phone

Like voting rights in the 1960s deep south ... there's a law in place, but the enforcement of that law makes it rotten to the core.

^ totally

Still are you serious?

You can't see anything wrong with confiscating and examining 12yo rape victims phone?

I'm aghast.

If she says no (maybe she has things on there she doesn't want combed through, like conversations with friends that she sees as private) then what?

Case dropped even though he's confessed?

Case jeopardised as she has something to hide even though he's confessed?

I'm also interested in the idea that if he withdraws his confession, you seem to think everything defaults back to as if he'd never confessed in the first place. That's ridiculous.

I am sure the child would be aok with the phone not being shared and the man prosecuted for the rape he has confessed to

Once they have phone it all needs to be shared with defence

I find the idea they are looking for evidence against the man unlikely. Why are you so sure that's what they want it for?

If eg they find she has been persuaded to send him an inage then she is guilty of making images of child sexual nature, she could be prosucuted. She is over legal age to be prosecuted. Police have shown an interest in prosecuting girls who have done this before and not the adult men who have persuaded them to do it (case in the news last year, never was updated with what happened).

I don’t see false accusations as anything remotely on the scale of actual rape. Plus I think one can be against both anyway. I am pretty much of the view that legal avenues completely fail. Besides if my back of the envelope calculations of there being 1.5 million rapists is at all accurate we have a problem. Even if we managed to secure convictions of 25% of them we’d see the size of the prisons estate increase by an order of several magnitudes.

I reckon there is a culture of collusion throughout the criminal justice system to deter accusations of rape being even made, and when they are they face nigh on insurmountable odds. I think this is by design to save on costs. I think decisions like this over the phones are specifically there to make more women pause about coming forward.

@Fraggling because if they withdrew their guilty plea, what on earth do the cps then have to back their story then? "Oh he said he did it at first, that's it. Soz, we've got nothing else"

Don't be so ridiculous. The case would fall apart.

I don't see why you're getting so irate with me. I'm seeing it from the perspective of building a legal case.

If eg they find she has been persuaded to send him an inage then she is guilty of making images of child sexual nature, she could be prosucuted. She is over legal age to be prosecuted.

No, she isn't!

That means the defendant who persuaded her to send it would be guilty of making and distributing indecent images of s child under the age of 13. As well as the allegation of rape.

I think the question is are you serious?

hoodathunkit When Keir Starmer was DPP, he commissioned a review of the false reporting rate for sexual offences and found that it was in line with other violent offences.

Still

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/paedophile-instagram-national-crime-agency-child-exploitation-online-protection-unit-a7951381.html

You seem to assume the police always do the right thing. That is naive tbh.

I also find it fascinating that you think a confession doesnt count as evidence if withdrawn.

Age of criminal responsibilty in uk is 10.

One might hope the police would go after the man in the above scenario and not the child, but.

You need read a bit more I think. The police cps etc have easy less than great history with these types of crimes.