Allegations of rape: Why are police asking victims for their phones?

[Cyclone]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-police-investigation-disclosure-forms-cps-a8888376.html

 

 

Quote

 

Rape victims must hand phones to police or face investigations being dropped under new scheme

 

Authorities warned ‘intrusion’ could stop women reporting rape after prosecutions fall to 1.7 per cent

 

 

You're deliberately misrepresenting the issue.

 

 

Quote

Rape and domestic violence victims will be forced to give police access to their phones and social media accounts or face their cases being dropped.

As simple as that.  No weasle words about reasonable lines of enquiry, it was quite clear.

There WAS an assurance about not seizing victims phones, but it was clarified as not meaning that they won't...  

 

 

Quote

 

It is crucial that only the reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued

The initiative, called the National Disclosure Improvement Plan, has been in action since the beginning of 2019 in the UK — in spite of the head of CPS stating victims’ phones will no longer be “seized as a matter of course” just weeks earlier.

Under the plan, police issue victims with forms requesting permission to access their devices and social media accounts, and warn them they might not take their case further if they do not comply.

Police say the move intends to ensure any communication between the potential rapist and victim are disclosed during trial.

But the move is a sharp departure from advice issued by the head of the CPS, Max Hill QC, who announced mobile devices will no longer be automatically confiscated as standard practice in November.

The CPS has gone on to clarify that this assurance specifically addressed any rape trials going through the court of appeal.

He said that while the accused has the right to a fair trial, “complainants are entitled to protection from unnecessary and unjustified invasion of their private lives”.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by nikki-red
Ridiculous font size

[Guest makapaka]

No - you’ve taken to quoting headlines from the media again rather than reading the information published by the policy makers.

 

if you form all your views based on the media reports you will continue to miss the actual facts - as you’ve demonstrated on a number of occasions on this thread. 

 

I think the media have misrepresented the issue - you've read the media reports and jumped to a conclusion.

 

lots of people do it - I have in the past - don’t worry about it.

Edited June 11, 2019 by makapaka

[Cyclone]

You've assumed that what they've said is what they actually do.

 

If you believe everything that the authorities say then you'll continue to be a sucker, as you've demonstrated on a number of occasions on this thread.

[Guest makapaka]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You've assumed that what they've said is what they actually do.

 

If you believe everything that the authorities say then you'll continue to be a sucker, as you've demonstrated on a number of occasions on this thread.

As opposed to drawing opinions on a newspaper headline - there’s only one sucker there I’m afraid.

 

you didn’t read the available information - threw out a load of inaccuracies and when proven wrong resort to just saying “well I don’t believe it”

 

I’ve shown you where you are wrong - I can’t make you believe what’s written in front of you - So I’ll leave this thread now . 

 

[nikki-red]

The bickering ends here.

[Mister M]

A case highlighted in today's Independent casts doubt over the legitimacy of the police's need to have the rape victim's personal details. After giving evidence to the police they obtained her attacker's DNA, they needed more evidence to charge him. The police presented her with consent forms enabling investigators to access records from her primary and secondary schools, universities, GP and therapists. They also wanted her mobile phone, but she had changed it since her attack.

The victim quite reasonably asks:

“What could they possibly have found in my school history that could have legitimately cast doubt on whether I was raped by a stranger?”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-medical-records-met-police-cps-a8949636.html

 

[ECCOnoob]

I guess that is why the police investigate.   Its the whole point.

 

I'm sure the ALLEGED victim can ask many questions about why they want this and why they need to ask that but doesn't mean its the wrong process.   What about the ALLEGED accused, they have rights to defend their case too.

 

The one sided agenda continually pushed by the media and several campaign groups is wholly unjust.

Edited June 11, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

A case highlighted in today's Independent casts doubt over the legitimacy of the police's need to have the rape victim's personal details. After giving evidence to the police they obtained her attacker's DNA, they needed more evidence to charge him. The police presented her with consent forms enabling investigators to access records from her primary and secondary schools, universities, GP and therapists. They also wanted her mobile phone, but she had changed it since her attack.

The victim quite reasonably asks:

“What could they possibly have found in my school history that could have legitimately cast doubt on whether I was raped by a stranger?”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-medical-records-met-police-cps-a8949636.html

 

I would agree that their school history was irrelevant and can’t see why that would  form a reasonable line of enquiry. 

 

Were the school records accessed? 

[Cyclone]

Why would a reported rape by a stranger need her phone either, since you've stated that they'll only ask for it when it's relevant...  This is clear evidence that what they say is not what they do.

[Cyclone]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49072302

So this is back in the news today with numerous reports of the police abusing the power and cases being dropped when the phone data is irrelevant.  

Quote

Another said police demanded seven years of phone data after she reported being drugged and raped by a group of strangers.

"My phone documents many of the most personal moments in my life and the thought of strangers combing through it, to try to use it against me, makes me feel like I'm being violated once again," she said.

A woman who reported historic abuse that took place before the mobile phone era had her case dropped when she refused consent to search her current phone, the report says.

 

Almost like this was entirely predictable.

Did you see the bit in bold Makapaka...  A historic case, before people even had mobile phones, dropped because she wouldn't give up her currently mobile phone!

 

On 11/06/2019 at 20:38, makapaka said:

As opposed to drawing opinions on a newspaper headline - there’s only one sucker there I’m afraid.

 

you didn’t read the available information - threw out a load of inaccuracies and when proven wrong resort to just saying “well I don’t believe it”

 

I’ve shown you where you are wrong - I can’t make you believe what’s written in front of you - So I’ll leave this thread now . 

 

So, turns out that I wasn't wrong...  And you were.  

Quote

In another case, the Crown Prosecution Service demanded to search the phone of a 12-year-old rape victim - even though the perpetrator had admitted the crime. The case was delayed for months as a result.

It's even held up cases where the rapist has admitted it.  You couldn't even make that one up could you.