Rape Victims Told To Hand Over Mobile Phones Or See Attackers Walk Free.

[Deskdiary]

Thoughts?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/28/rape-victims-told-hand-mobile-phones-see-attackers-walk-free/

I don't like the banner headline - the use of the word "attackers" suggests guilt has been decided before a trial: 'Accused' would have been a more appropriate word to use....but that's by the by.

I completely understand Olivia's point of view when she states "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." BUT, what if buried within those personal moments reveals messages that confirms the innocence of the accused?

On balance this seems like a good idea as (hopefully) it will stop the pernicious false accusations that can ruin the lives of those falsely accused.

[ToraToraTora]

I get why but surely all they want is any contact with the accused/accuser and they can get that from the phone companies. Bit of a sledge hammer to crack a nut if you ask me. Also most of the cases that they refer to are caused by the prosecution withholding said evidence until the last minute or coming clean when it emerges another way. As usual the CPS are being a useless shower.

[dannyk13]

Not sure that this is a good idea, as it says in the link,it might deter some rape victims reporting it.

[calmck]

If you really are a victim of rape then surely you would want as much evidence as possible. If you are accused then you would want to prove innocence. If there is evidence of guilt or innocence on the phones then they should be used but with discretion as to what information is accessed

[youngmafbog]

It is the usual "MAY" in there that makes the difference. As Usual headlines insinuate the may is a WILL.

Always going to be a difficult one but there have been quite a few people having their lives wrecked by false accusations.

Blame those women for this action.

[naomi24]

In the absence of evidence either way checking the content of mobile phones is reasonable.

[JF85]

Presumably the next step is to seize the PCs and mobiles of those claiming to have been burgled. This would be evidence they had not offered the missing items for sale.

[Deskdiary]

^^^That's a bit of a leap of logic wouldn't you say?

[dannyk13]

Naomi @ 09.31
I think that a lot of women would disagree with you.

[naomi24]

danny, that's their prerogative. I think a lot of men are falsely accused. As Deskdiary says, men accused of rape are automatically branded 'attackers' and unless they are proven to be 'attackers' that can't be right.

[JF85]

The police want to check that accusers did not have an undisclosed relationship with the accused. The most high profile case was one where the accuser was later shown to have pestered the accused for sex after the alleged incident. I cannot think of any reason why he did not say this in his defence, and provide his own mobile as evidence.

The police case seems to be that there might be evidence on the accuser's mobile that would undermine the rape claim. This argument is riddled

[dannyk13]

Naomi, I agree with you, but already some women's groups have intimated that they will challenge this in law.

[naomi24]

danny, in that case I think they're wrong - but then I often think women's groups are wrong.

[calmck]

In a way women have bought this upon themselves by the actions of some accusers. I hope those challenging this never need to have their phones used as evidence for or against them

[dannyk13]

If a mobile phone is going to be so essential to a rape case what will happen in the case of a rape victim not owning a mobile phone?

[naomi24]

calmck, //I hope those challenging this never need to have their phones used as evidence for or against them //

That's a very good point. I wonder how many of the objectors would object to their phones being examined if the accused had been stalking them?

[JF85]

The police want to check that accusers did not have an undisclosed relationship with the accused. The most high profile case was one where the accuser was later shown to have pestered the accused for sex after the alleged incident. I cannot think of any reason why he did not say this in his defence, and provide his own mobile as evidence.

The police case seems to be that there might be evidence on the accuser's mobile that would undermine the rape claim. This argument is riddled with loopholes and judgments. Evidence of sexual promiscuity, for example, does not make rape any less of an offence.

Rape is as much about power as it is about sex. By choosing to deprive the accuser of their mobile without sufficient grounds is tantamount to continuing the abuse. There is so much personal information on a smartphone, and the police would need to comb through all of it to determine if any of it is relevant. I would not want to give a stranger access to messages to and from my family members at times of distress, for instance. The police are not above data breaches or unauthorised access to information.

Why are the police so keen to undermine rape allegations but not others? If I am accused of stealing a TV from someone's living room at dead of night, I would expect them to prove they owned the item in the first place, and that they had not sold it in an insurance scam. Our legal system is set up to reduce risk of unjust convictions, so the defence need to be able to confirm that an offence actually took place, but there is no proposal to seize mobiles from those claiming to have been burgled.

[Old_Geezer]

I'm presently 'on the fence' re this. I think it is very regrettable, but I understand the reasons why. Have to see how it plays out.

[THECORBYLOON]

If you had been accused of stealing a TV from someone's living room at dead of night, would the police not need evidence of your being in that room, regardless of what had been taken?

[youngmafbog]

"Why are the police so keen to undermine rape allegations but not others? "

They are not. Read the proposals correctly and note the "MAY" bit. All they are saying is that they can preempt any side balls from the defence.

[youngmafbog]

"If a mobile phone is going to be so essential to a rape case what will happen in the case of a rape victim not owning a mobile phone?"

Easy, they wont ask for it!