Rape accusers to be asked to hand their phones to police

Obviously you don't understand the article. It is voluntary to hand over your phone, so who is going to give them their phone but not the password?

The phone is taken from you when you get arrested. It might be full of personal stuff, and being accused does not equal being guilty. I would not give them password, just tell them I do not remember ... and it's long enough to be unhackable...

Interesting. I thought vaginal trauma added to the evidence. I know the DNA swabs are done to check for a match with the accused. Rape cases should be fully investigated, so that the rapists go to jail.

I think a major discourse now is about consent. No means no, but what happens when it was “Yes” during the case and “no” afterwards?

Again, this is about accusers passing their phone to the police to aid their investigation.

Why is this such a tricky concept for you to grasp?

I know, I am sorry. I misread the word. But still, once you give it them, you have no control over what is going to happen with your stuff and who is going to have access to it..

I imagine trauma would help... at least, I imagine a jury is more likely to believe/convict in a case where there's clear evidence of a struggle or trauma... but a good defence lawyer could quite truthfully bring in experts to testify that it's irrelevant/that the trauma proves intercourse but not non-consensual intercourse.

Definitely agree with your other reply about thorough investigation. I'm also in favour of tightening rules on media coverage - in rape cases I think it's quite common for the accused to be immediately portrayed as guilty. I think perhaps it would be better if names weren't allowed to be released. Especially as rape cases are quite often very complex and rely on nuance/small details. At least that way, the accused would have some protection while the police investigated.

The problem with phone evidence is that you can't just extract the relevant data, as you don't know what's relevant until you've looked at it. And legally, the defence has to be given access to all evidence/information collected that may assist in the defence or undermine the prosecution's case, even if the police think it's irrelevant and the prosecution aren't using it at trial.
If the prosecution don't disclose the evidence to the defence, then any conviction could be later overturned on appeal on the basis that the first trial wasn't carried out properly/fairly

Yes, it is tricky when it comes to how the defence would play the evidence, but this is not limited to the phone details and can be anything.

True, but with how much data most people keep on their phones these days, phones will provide a whole host of irrelevant details that the police wouldn't even ask for from other sources.

I mean, as a random example, assume you're raped after a night out clubbing by a guy you went home with ... the police aren't likely to ask you to physically hand over all the photos you've taken on random nights out as part of the investigation, just photos from the night in question... but if those photos on your phone then the defence can use them to show you're a "party girl", you dress provocatively, you dance provocatively, you're regularly out with different guys, maybe you regularly go home with different guys, maybe you just had sex and changed your mind the next day, maybe it's perfectly reasonable that the accused thought you'd consented because look at your pattern of behaviour from all these nights out etc etc.

The police might well interview friends/family to find out about your relationship with the accused and your behaviour before and after the alleged rape etc etc. And having access to your electronic conversations would be more helpful as it doesn't rely on the memory of others and you then have a verbatim record... but then the defence can use any conversation you've ever had against you.

It's compelling accusers to hand over a whole wealth of data that the police don't need and wouldn't otherwise have access to, to prove/disprove the alleged rape, just because a small amount of the data on the device might be relevant.

It will be treated like any other personal data which is dictated by GDPR and Data Protection.

If you have anything incriminating on your phone you should probably get rid of it before passing your phone over.

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.

and what was the final outcome, do you know?

I think there may be clear boundaries during an investigation. For example, if you went home with a guy and you were raped, the police would obtain information surrounding yourself, the accused and any other person that can act as a witness to the events before, during or afterwards. When they are reviewing electronic communication, i don't think they would admit random irrelevant evidence to the record.

If a person said they were raped in a bar. The police ask for witnesses, go to the said bar and obtain cctv evidence, check for people living around the scene to obtain any comments or notes from the said night etc. This will be similar to electronic communication. I doubt the police would ask a randomer about the event and admit the nonsense they might say to the official record.

My point is that accuser’s should not really have anything to hide, if they hand their phone over. A good defence lawyer can look for loopholes any where, so the phone is not the be all and end all.

For a genuine rape victim it is somewhat intrusive however too many women these days are making false allegations and this is an attempt to cut down on dodgy cases being put before the courts so I welcome the changes.

It's definitely an awkward one as it's absolutely awful for those falsely accused, especially when mobile phone data could very easily be used to clear them.

But the questions you're asking are exactly the kinds of questions which lead to real rape victims not being believed or their testimony being ripped apart at trial.

Take my own case, assuming I'd pushed for it to be investigated...

I was acquainted with the "accused". He was a long-time friend of my new friends at college. I'd met him twice and got on really well with him, probably could have fancied him if it weren't for the fact he's gay and so I just didn't even look at him like that. I'd hugged and kissed him on a night out before (he was very huggy/kissy with his female friends when drunk). The night it happened we were camping. We could have all stayed in my friend's tent, but I chose to stay in a separate tent with just him (he was being maungy as he'd bought a new tent and wanted to use it but wouldn't use it just for himself). He was drunk. I wasn't. I spent the evening with him looking happy and friendly - there's photos of us sat smiling cuddled up. When he raped me I didn't scream for help even though my friends were in the tent just a metre or so away. The morning after the rape, I told at least two of the friend's I'd been camping with that I was raped. I went to the hospital and said I was raped. And then to the GUM clinic and said I was raped. However, at college, some of my other friends didn't believe me cos they'd known him years - they thought I'd had a one-night stand I regretted/was embarrassed about as I wasn't as "sexually liberal" as them. So I played it down, made excuses, said he was drunk and he didn't know what he was doing etc etc.

So looking at that story... about the only thing I have going for me as a "victim" is that I disclosed the rape immediately the next morning, and maintained I was raped when I went to the hospital and the GUM clinic. Aside from that, there's plenty of "evidence" that can be used to make it look consensual. If I'd reported it, and if I'd been forced to hand over my phone, then the defence would have access to those photos and the messages downplaying it.

By answering the questions you're suggesting, I look like I wasn't raped.

The nature of the relationship and what happened before/after should be irrelevant - what matters is was consent given, or could the accused reasonably believe consent was given, at the time of the alleged rape. Whilst asking those questions might reveal a false rape claim, they're much more likely to rip holes in the story of a genuine claim and put victims off reporting.

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.

I don't know anyone who has been falsely accused of a "other" crime that could land them in jail for 10 yrs, but know of more than one person falsely accused of rape.

For a genuine rape victim it is somewhat intrusive however too many women these days are making false allegations and this is an attempt to cut down on dodgy cases being put before the courts so I welcome the changes.