
Rape victims among those to be asked to hand phones to police - vesinisa
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48086244
======
roenxi
Wikipedia suggests [0] at least 1 rape accusation in 50 is made baselessly and
with malicious intent. Maybe a further 4 in 50 are likely to be mis-identified
situations with no crime occurring.

On the one hand, those numbers aren't high. On the other hand, these numbers
are high enough that the police should be diligent exploring all available
avenues of evidence. They should be tactful, discreet and empathetic as they
do so.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape)

~~~
repolfx
I wouldn't trust Wikipedia if I were you.

There are various studies that look into this. Some of them work by examining
police reports and looking at cases where the police concluded the woman was
lying. These routinely give a figure as high as 50%. In interviews with
individual policemen and policewomen, when asked to estimate the false
reporting rate they also ballpark it at 50%.

The 2% number is outright fraud. Try and find the original source for this
figure and you won't be able to - others have tried. It gets repeated
endlessly anyway because it suits the feminist cause to make false reports
look extremely rare, but the 2% figure correlates with nothing. For instance
the FBI's own figures show _at minimum_ an 8% false reporting rate, which is
much higher than for any other crime, and that's based on DNA tests alone.
When the cases discarded by the police even before that are taken into account
(e.g. because the woman admitted the next day she was drunk and hadn't really
been raped, a surprisingly common occurrence) the rate climbs much further.

See here for a writeup:

[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/false-sex-
as...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/false-sex-assault-
reports-not-rare-reported-studie/)

Unfortunately what you see in this space is rampant manipulation of the
figures. For instance it's common for a woman retracting her claim (i.e.
saying she wasn't raped after all) to not be considered a false accusation,
although there was an accusation, and the woman later decided her accusation
should not stand. We can see a user in this thread stating that a woman
admitting she lied is not sufficient evidence that the accusation was false -
it's apparent that such people are desperate for the narrative to hold up, but
what standard of proof _would_ be sufficient for them? Of course in extremely
rare cases someone might file a claim, and then retract it, whilst having been
correct originally. But very often claims are retracted because the accuser
realises an investigation will reveal that they're lying.

~~~
ColanR
If this comment is going to be downvoted and flagged, someone needs to step up
and provide a reason. The source is a good one; there's nothing inflammatory
in the tone of the comment, and facts are provided. Let's discuss these
things, not cover them up.

------
growlist
'The woman who accused Allan said he had raped her multiple times over a
14-month period, and that she did not enjoy sex with him.'

'But the text messages show her directly contradicting these claims. In one
message, she wrote “It wasn’t against my will or anything.” She also
continually asked him for more sexual encounters and discussed rape
fantasies.'

Note: this woman's anonymity is still preserved, and she has apparently faced
no punishment whatsoever. The UK seems to have a flexible attitude as to
whether a false rape accusation should be considered a crime.

[https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/11/liam-allan-falsely-
accu...](https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/11/liam-allan-falsely-accused-rape-
accuser-almost-got-away/)

~~~
DanBC
> The UK seems to have a flexible attitude as to whether a false rape
> accusation should be considered a crime.

This isn't true. False accusations of rape are more likely to be prosecuted
than rape.

~~~
growlist
This case alone demonstrates it is true, and apart from this case there are
other similar cases where no action was taken. Granted, it would be
spectacularly embarrassing for the CPS/DPP if the accuser in the case had
ended up being prosecuted herself, which is perhaps the explanation for the
egregious neglect of justice here - I'm not sure how it is possible to get
much more open and shut than clear evidence explicitly stating that what was
accused never took place.

~~~
ilikehurdles
You’re extrapolating an entire country’s legal culture on sex crimes from a
single editorialized reading of a single case; and at that, it’s targeted
toward Joe Schmo’s quick glance at the days news over a morning coffee, not to
serve as any kind of legal briefing.

~~~
growlist
“It wasn’t against my will or anything.”

~~~
DanBC
So in your mind she definitely lied to the police and it's inconceivable that
she lied in her text messages?

------
Funes-
I really don't know what could make someone who has been the victim of such a
heinous crime not hand over their phone if they are being honest in their
accusations. Not having your phone for a month beats keeping your rapist
unpunished in all cases, doesn't it?

Maybe I'm missing something here, so I will welcome any comments that could
shed some light on that. There may be cases that I'm not contemplating which
could prove me wrong.

P. S. An anecdote: one of my relatives is an attorney; he had a case which had
been resolved as a false rape accusation just because they found evidence in
the accuser's WhatsApp chats. It turns out she had been discussing with her
mother how they would proceed to incriminate her alleged rapist so they could
benefit economically from the trial. She wasn't prosecuted afterwards, which
is the norm in my country.

~~~
gus_massa
Self nude photos that can be leaked.

Logged in accounts to a few sites. Ssh/pgp keys.

A Bitcoin/Ethereum wallet without password.

Secret drafts of midterms we will administer in the university.

(I actually only have two of the four.)

------
saagarjha
> police and prosecutors say the forms are an attempt to plug a gap in the law
> which says complainants and witnesses cannot be forced to disclose relevant
> content from phones, laptops, tablets or smart watches

This isn’t a “gap in the law” at all: it’s protection against incriminating
yourself. It’s especially horrible that police are trying to push those
involved in sexual assault trials to give up their liberties…

~~~
ryanm101
>This isn’t a “gap in the law” at all: it’s protection against incriminating
yourself.

So someones life should be ruined if you falsely accuse them simply because
you shouldnt be allowed to incriminate yourself?

~~~
fabricexpert
Self incrimination is not the same as a false accusation.

Imagine if the person raped committed a different crime, unrelated to the
rape, for which there was evidence of that on their phone.

In order to report the rape, they have to self incriminate themself for that
crime as well? In this scenario any drug user, prostitute or other criminal
has no protection from the law against being raped.

~~~
coherentpony
Or even more simply, even if there's no "other" crime: it's my personal data.
I have a right to privacy.

~~~
ryanm101
You also have an obligation to help the police solve the crime you reported by
providing all and any relevant information.

The issue is that people don't always know what information is relevant / they
think stuff is too minor to mention.

You wouldn't go to a doctors appointment and then say my body is private you
cant examine me and expect them to go off just the info you provide. If the
doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate you don't
say er no thanks that's too private. You assume he has a good medical reason
that he wants to do that and you let him confirm that you are healthy.

~~~
jbarberu
"If the doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate
you don't say er no thanks that's too private"

If you don't want your doctor to stick his finger up your butt, then that's
exactly what you do. They don't have a right to finger your prostate, even
though it might be beneficial to you.

~~~
eindiran
Yes, but then you don't get to be checked for prostate cancer.

~~~
coherentpony
That's 100% correct, and 100% not the conversation we are having.

If you don't want a medical procedure, even if it would be beneficial to you,
you can refuse it. It is your right (at least in the US).

~~~
tracker1
And like the doctor that cannot diagnose you with appropriate information, the
police can't prosecute the accused without potentially backing or detracting
details.

------
Neil44
What's prompted this is a couple of high profile cases recently where evidence
from the complainant's phone has come up at the eleventh hour and exonerated
the accused, wasting large amounts of taxpayer money and needlessly
persecuting the innocent.

------
55555
'Fake' rape reports are a growing problem and the cases I have seen haven't
resulted in any punishment for the accuser. I mean, obviously this isn't the
best solution to the problem, but it's by far the easiest and cheapest for the
taxpayer. It's evidence that would probably be required for the case in court
anyway, right?

~~~
fabricexpert
No- the prosecution does not have to search for and provide evidence that may
exonerate the defense, that would be ridiculous.

~~~
FakeComments
They don’t have to search for it, but they do have to provide any exonerating
evidence they discover in the course of their investigation.

That’s part of “discovery”, and cases have been thrown out because prosecutors
concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense.

~~~
DanBC
It's what happened in the Liam Allen case which triggers this new guidance.

------
tracker1
All I can say, is that when I was 19, I was falsely accused of rape. It was
terrifying as a prospect even before fully knowing all the following results
that would happen.

First, you're in prison for a crime you didn't commit. Second, you're unable
to get most jobs after prison because of the sentence. Third, you have to
register for the rest of your life and deal with harassment or worse from
vigilantist neighbors. Fourth, you aren't allowed to even live in a lot of
places as a former felon and sex offender.

If a false accuser goes far enough to actually see a trial and they're found
to be lying, they absolutely should at the very least have to register on the
sex offender registry as a potential risk to _ANY_ future partners even if
they don't see jail time when convicted.

Edit: I've also been on the victim side of this... being falsely accused was
far, far, far worse.

Edit 2: The accuser doesn't _have_ to turn over their phone... beyond that,
I'd be fine to see an immunity from all but a specific list of felonies
against any evidence found on the phone. I understand the risks against
personal liberty and would prefer some protections... but it's too easy to get
a false conviction. How many people every year are convicted under false
accusations, and only accusation without evidence?

------
NotPaidToPost
> "We seem to be going back to the bad old days when victims of rape are being
> treated as suspects."

It's tiring and in fact dangerous to see some groups continuously campaigning
for women reporting rape to be blindly believed.

Being accused of rape is devastating it is just that the police should start
with a neutral stance and try to assert the plausibility of the accusation.

~~~
ryanm101
Absolutely, I agree. The presumption is innocent until proven guilty and the
problem with sex crimes is even the accusation can completely destroy someones
life regardless even if they are later found to have been innocent.

In reality it is no different from ANY other crime in that there needs to be
evidence that a crime has actually been committed.

------
dragonwriter
This seems broadly in line (but less intrusive, and less protective of
defendant's rights) with what has always been US practice in that no one is
immune to being compelled to provide evidence except for very specific
privileges.

Not only can police/people ask for this information in the US (and the British
use appears to be purely voluntary but with potential impacts on prosecution
if it does not), but also either the prosecution or defense can issue
subpoenas or secure court orders for evidence in the possession of victims or
other parties.

------
DanBC
For a Barrister's view:
[https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/11228239278042275...](https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1122823927804227586)

------
ptah
The case this stems from seems to have had problems due to historical Tory
cuts to police budgets by Theresa May when police was her responsibility as
shown in the Analysis section here: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
england-42873618](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42873618)

~~~
growlist
Don't try to pin this on the Tories - it was generally acknowledged to be the
DPP's fault: [https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/20/mps-criticise-
dp...](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/20/mps-criticise-dpp-alison-
saunders-collapse-rape-trials)

------
dalbasal
Would the entirety of the phone's contents become evidence that prosecution
and defense can both look at to support their case?

Also, if a victim/accuser refuses blanket consent, can they still make
_certain_ content available as evidence? Eg, text messages but not tinder or
browsing history.

These things are always minefields.

~~~
torstenvl
I can't speak to the U.K., but in the U.S., the answer is: it depends.

Typically, a search warrant will be limited in scope, whereas a consent search
will not be. In fact, law enforcement is usually trained to ask for consent to
search _even if they have a warrant,_ because it precludes a lot of legal
issues. For example, if they are executing a search and they see something out
in the open that suggests some other crime but isn't conclusive, and they want
to search for more evidence related to that other issue, they are supposed to
seek another warrant unless an exception applies (e.g., exigent
circumstances). If they have consent to search the house (or car, or ...),
then they do not need to stop, and they do not need to worry about the
evidence being excluded if the judge disagrees that there were exigent
circumstances.

For this reason, I think a lot of the reactions in this thread against
compelled evidence are misplaced. A victim is much _more_ likely to implicate
herself or himself in collateral conduct in a consent search than they would
be if the evidence were compelled. A search warrant, for example, would likely
be limited to text messages between the alleged victim and the alleged
perpetrator... and _not_ include, e.g., text messages between the alleged
victim and her/his drug dealer.

Defense access will depend on discovery rules, which vary widely between
jurisdictions. Either way, it won't be admissible in court unless a judge
rules that it is relevant to the case.

------
multibit
This won't help if a woman making a false accusation simply deletes the
exonerating messages. If they used encrypted/ephemeral messaging, the
phone/app company can't turn them over either. If the victim is lucky they'll
still have their own copies.

------
DanBC
Here's the actual guidance from CPS: [https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/handing-
over-mobile-phone-da...](https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/handing-over-mobile-
phone-data-rape-prosecutions)

------
DoreenMichele
I'm disturbed by the increasing focus on the prosecution of rape. We need much
more focus on rape prevention than what I'm seeing.

I think the current adversarial climate just deepens the problem.

------
bentona
Would the accused also be forced to hand over their phone? My initial impulse
is that if we're going for equity, the same policy should be applied to both.
I'm also assuming that there is an implicit accusation of false accusation by
the originally accused.

~~~
DanBC
If the accused says "it was fully consensual and I have messages on my phone
that prove it" then yes, they would hand over their phone. This is the context
in which the victim's phone would be searched.

If the complainant said the phone was used during the rape to record the act
then the phone would be seized as evidence.

> I'm also assuming that there is an implicit accusation of false accusation
> by the originally accused.

This is the difficult balancing act the police have to do: they have to treat
complainants with respect and robustly investigate the alleged crime, but they
have to hold open the (small) possibility that it didn't happen like the
complainant says.

------
0815test
Clickbait. The prosecutors will only request the phones to be handed over when
_they 're expected to contain evidence that's "relevant" to the case_ \-
possibly, evidence that might exonerate the defendant. Even in the U.S.,
prosecutors are in fact not allowed to withhold exculpatory evidence; it must
be disclosed, according to the law.

------
0898
Alleged rape victims.

[Edit] Why is this flagged? Pre-trial, they're an alleged victim – not a
victim.

~~~
tzs
I don't think that is correct, because the question before the court is not
whether or not the person is a victim. The question is whether or not the
accused committed the crime they are charged with.

If the accused is convicted, we can infer that the accuser was indeed a
victim. However, if the accused is acquitted, we _cannot_ infer that the
accuser was not a victim--we can only infer that if they were a victim, they
were victimized by someone other than the accused.

(There's also some fuzziness in here because of the "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard from criminal cases).

Your observation would only be correct in judicial systems in which an alleged
victim has to undergo some sort of trial or hearing at which they must prove
that a crime occurred against them before the system moves on to finding and
trying someone for perpetrating that crime.

~~~
Udik
> However, if the accused is acquitted, we cannot infer that the accuser was
> not a victim--we can only infer that if they were a victim, they were
> victimized by someone other than the accused.

Hm? I suppose that an overwhelming majority of rape allegations are made
against one or more specific persons. If the accused are acquitted, the rape
either didn't happen or cannot be proved because there are no witnesses and no
evidence of it (which is in itself rather suspicious).

------
caprese
what some say: "but victims will stop coming forward" (upvote, upvote, upvote)

what others say: "but false accusations, indictments and convictions will also
stop" (upvote, downvote, downvote)

what some reply: "are you sure that is really a problem" (upvote upvote
upvote)

how frustrating, especially when nobody can reliable quantify anything or
reliable prove anything

~~~
bloak
And BBC journalists can't be bothered to explain even roughly what the current
law is. Just copy-paste a few quotes, waffle a bit (don't forget to hit return
twice after every full stop!) then move on to the next story.

~~~
caprese
When I was in another commonwealth country, Australia, I found that newspapers
would often dance around uncomfortable issues to the point where you wouldn't
even know what they are talking about.

That was very odd to me. Who, what, why, when, where and how was just missing
from articles like with Myanmar immigrants, or sexual assault solutions.

This BBC article reminds me of that.

------
ryeights
A gross invasion of privacy if I've ever seen one. A person's phone contains
their most private thoughts, conversations, photos, etc. and victims are now
expected to bare it all to police if they want a trial? What has the UK
become?

If the plaintiff's case is so weak that it could be discounted by a text
message, then the jury should be ruling not guilty either way.

~~~
throw_political
I think if you want to accuse someone of something as serious as rape then you
should be prepared to back that up with access to all your data.

~~~
ilikehurdles
Why stop at rape accusations? Why not theft, or hit and runs? How about
whenever you accuse anyone of any infraction, you have to hand over all your
digital data to law enforcement?

Oh I bet you’d never want to be subject to that, yet you want to make a
special rule for one kind of accusation.

~~~
bloak
One kind of accusation? Do you mean the kind of accusation in which the only
evidence that a crime ever took place is the statement of a single witnesses?
It doesn't seem unreasonable that you'd want to investigate the credibility of
the witness in such cases. I certainly wouldn't stop at rape accusations.

However, I think I'd prefer to see a court, rather than just the police,
decide what data should be obtained/requested and how it should be used.

I suspect that in some of these cases the police think it's a hopeless case
and are looking for a justification for dropping it. They are perhaps
thinking: if this person really wants us to prosecute, then, OK, we'll do it,
even if it seems hopeless, but if they won't even fully cooperate by letting
us examine their phone then we really can't be bothered any more because we've
got lots of better cases to be working on.

