Rape accusers to be asked to hand their phones to police

I think this already happens. When I reported rape to the police there were texts from him apologising for what he had done. The police took my phone.

All this surveillance and they still need us to hand over our phones to find text messages...

A tricky one this. Having their phones and everything being scrutinised by the police will obviously deter many accusers from coming forward to the police, which is clearly a bad thing. However, the move towards gathering as much relevant information as possible on the accuser and the accused from likely sources (such as phones) is motivated by several such cases collapsing after it being found that the police didn't find or disclose exonerating evidence in time, such as here.

I think it would depend on the accused's defence, if they claimed (as Allan did) that the accuser had sent them many messages pestering for sex, but then this undermines the right to a fair trial if one side has to disclose their strategy (even if it is 'tell the truth') before getting to court. It also wouldn't have found that Allan's accuser had often discussed Allan with others (so he would have no idea of it from the messages he shared with her), including rape fantasies.

Is it reasonable to require an accuser's phone and information to check if there is any information on it that would discredit them? Obviously with the burden of proof being on the accuser, it is sensible to see if there is a gaping hole in their story as soon as possible. But even if nothing were found, an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence so this line of evidence gathering can only hurt the accuser, not help them (that I can see). They would be compelled to give evidence that can't help them (unless it contradicts the accused's story later, but we can't know what that will be), or the prosecution may not go ahead.

Apparently if they refuse to give in phone, their case could be dropped.😶 people saying this may break some privacy or human right laws.

A tricky one this. Having their phones and everything being scrutinised by the police will obviously deter many accusers from coming forward to the police, which is clearly a bad thing. However, the move towards gathering as much relevant information as possible on the accuser and the accused from likely sources (such as phones) is motivated by several such cases collapsing after it being found that the police didn't find or disclose exonerating evidence in time, such as here.

I think it would depend on the accused's defence, if they claimed (as Allan did) that the accuser had sent them many messages pestering for sex, but then this undermines the right to a fair trial if one side has to disclose their strategy (even if it is 'tell the truth') before getting to court. It also wouldn't have found that Allan's accuser had often discussed Allan with others (so he would have no idea of it from the messages he shared with her), including rape fantasies.

Is it reasonable to require an accuser's phone and information to check if there is any information on it that would discredit them? Obviously with the burden of proof being on the accuser, it is sensible to see if there is a gaping hole in their story as soon as possible. But even if nothing were found, an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence so this line of evidence gathering can only hurt the accuser, not help them (that I can see). They would be compelled to give evidence that can't help them (unless it contradicts the accused's story later, but we can't know what that will be), or the prosecution may not go ahead.

If the phone is encrypted they will never make it in without a password, so kind of useless.

I mean, they'll probably force you to give the password when giving the phone. I don't think the police are that stupid, Keen.

While digital evidence is probably necessary to pursue cases, I've gotta say: who decides to what extent the Police are allowed to go through your phone? When do they stop? Is it even necessary if the rapist didn't communicate with you digitally?

While this seems an open-and-shut "yes this is a good idea" case at first, keep in mind that the lack of privacy and transparency may not be palatable to those who've already been exploited and attacked.