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

[Guest makapaka]

20 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Did you read the links?

Yes but they talk about future concerns which the cps have provided reassurance on.

 

where is the evidence that the cps are not telling the truth?

[Cyclone 10]

What the CPS describes doesn't appear to be how it works in reality, that's clear from the first link, with stories of the entire contents of victims phones being inappropriately shared with the defence, stories of the attackers actually being given the address of the victim and so on.

I don't think the CPS lied.  I think they described how it's supposed to work.  Which isn't what actually happens.

 

I know you don't like to question authority, you spent hundreds of pages defending SCC with regards to their behaviour around trees.  But simply because some public body says or does something does not make it right, nor does it make it correct.  

Edited May 13, 2019 by Cyclone

[Guest makapaka]

7 hours ago, Cyclone said:

What the CPS describes doesn't appear to be how it works in reality, that's clear from the first link, with stories of the entire contents of victims phones being inappropriately shared with the defence, stories of the attackers actually being given the address of the victim and so on.

I don't think the CPS lied.  I think they described how it's supposed to work.  Which isn't what actually happens.

 

I know you don't like to question authority, you spent hundreds of pages defending SCC with regards to their behaviour around trees.  But simply because some public body says or does something does not make it right, nor does it make it correct.  

Bizarre.

[Cyclone 10]

Really, that's your response...

[the_bloke 17]

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/sheffield-mum-locked-up-for-making-false-and-wicked-allegation-of-rape-against-man-she-met-on-night-out-1-9766321

 

Imagine what would have happened here if there was no access to the mobile phone; we could easily have seen someone being wrongly imprisoned.

[altus 538]

4 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/sheffield-mum-locked-up-for-making-false-and-wicked-allegation-of-rape-against-man-she-met-on-night-out-1-9766321

 

Imagine what would have happened here if there was no access to the mobile phone; we could easily have seen someone being wrongly imprisoned.

Firstly, there's indication in that article that the police even saw the contents of her phone.

 

There is no "the" mobile phone for text messages and phone calls - they have both source and destination devices. It's very likely the police saw the details on the destination device at which point they would have reasonable grounds for getting a warrant to look at her phone.

 

This case doesn't demonstrate a requirement for the automatic handing over of phones.

[the_bloke 17]

2 hours ago, altus said:

Firstly, there's indication in that article that the police even saw the contents of her phone.

 

There is no "the" mobile phone for text messages and phone calls - they have both source and destination devices. It's very likely the police saw the details on the destination device at which point they would have reasonable grounds for getting a warrant to look at her phone.

 

This case doesn't demonstrate a requirement for the automatic handing over of phones.

If the Police didn't see the contents of her phone and the messages on it, then why was it even mentioned? Surely the Star can only report on facts that came out in court.

 

It's also technologically naive to think that the only things on a phone are text messages and telephone calls; I hardly use mine for either.

 

IMO this case demonstrates how important mobile phones are in establishing the context of two people's relationship when one is accused of rape. The issue is when other things on the device are then used in some way to smear the victim. 

[altus 538]

59 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

If the Police didn't see the contents of her phone and the messages on it, then why was it even mentioned? Surely the Star can only report on facts that came out in court.

It doesn't mention her phone. It mentions text messages and attempts to call - both of which would be available on the accused's phone.

It's also technologically naive to think that the only things on a phone are text messages and telephone calls; I hardly use mine for either.

I don't think they are the only things that might be on a phone. It's naive to think that the police can only access someone's phone if they voluntarily hand it over when they first make a complaint about someone.

IMO this case demonstrates how important mobile phones are in establishing the context of two people's relationship when one is accused of rape. The issue is when other things on the device are then used in some way to smear the victim.

What it doesn't do is demonstrate a need for the police to have access to an accuser's phone at the very start of the process.

[the_bloke 17]

3 hours ago, altus said:

What it doesn't do is demonstrate a need for the police to have access to an accuser's phone at the very start of the process.

But it does demonstrate the need to have access to their phone though. So it appears your issue is with the Police having access to every phone of note whilst information gathering rather than requiring a warrant.

[Lockdoctor 10]

7 hours ago, the_bloke said:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/sheffield-mum-locked-up-for-making-false-and-wicked-allegation-of-rape-against-man-she-met-on-night-out-1-9766321

 

Imagine what would have happened here if there was no access to the mobile phone; we could easily have seen someone being wrongly imprisoned.

Exactly correct.   Anyone making a serious allegation should be prepared to be investigated themselves.

 

There is a high profile court case just started which involves someone who has alleged to have made a number of false allegations.  

 

Carl Beech told 'extraordinary tale' of VIP paedophile ring

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48265204

Edited May 14, 2019 by nikki-red

[altus 538]

11 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

But it does demonstrate the need to have access to their phone though.

No it doesn't. All the phone related information in the article would have been available on the accused's phone.

So it appears your issue is with the Police having access to every phone of note whilst information gathering rather than requiring a warrant.

There are checks and balances on what the police are allowed to do. Them having to obtain warrants and the rules under which they will be granted are part of this. If they have to get a warrant to search your property[1], why shouldn't they need one to search your phone?

 

 

[1] There are exceptions such as to answer cries for help.

[Cyclone 10]

19 hours ago, the_bloke said:

If the Police didn't see the contents of her phone and the messages on it, then why was it even mentioned? Surely the Star can only report on facts that came out in court.

 

It's also technologically naive to think that the only things on a phone are text messages and telephone calls; I hardly use mine for either.

 

IMO this case demonstrates how important mobile phones are in establishing the context of two people's relationship when one is accused of rape. The issue is when other things on the device are then used in some way to smear the victim. 

Her phone wasn't mentioned.

 

What was mentioned were a number of calls and texts.  The texts would be available on his phone and from the network operator, but more importantly.

 

Quote

 

During the course of the police investigation into Weldon’s allegation, officers obtained CCTV from Maida Vale which showed Weldon and the complainant ‘hugging and kissing’. 

Mr Goldsack told the court that officers also took a statement from one of the complainant’s neighbours, who said he witnessed him coming home with Weldon; and later heard ‘love making and a female making pleasurable sounds’ through the walls of their adjoining properties.

 

When it became clear that there were problems with her story, only then is appropriate for her to become a target of AN investigation (not the same investigation) into making a false report, at which point perhaps seizing her phone is proportional.

 

14 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

Exactly correct.   Anyone making a serious allegation should be prepared to be investigated themselves.

 

Absolutely not.  Unless your intent is to deter people from making reports.