Auditors

[Fedster + 1,307]

Campaign groups call for reform of 'digital strip searches' amid claims policy is unlawful.

Dame Vera Baird: 'Many are discouraged by what looks like scrutiny of whether they are suitable or worthy'

Date - 23rd July 2019
By - Nick Hudson - Police Oracle

1 Comment

 

Forces are facing a second full-on attack on their policing methods as campaigners call for urgent reform and question the legality to so-called "digital strip searches" of crime victims.

New digital disclosure consent forms have been rolled out to all 43 police forces across England and Wales informing victims that refusing to allow investigators access to their messages, photographs, emails and social media accounts could mean prosecutions are halted.

The multi group protest has been joined by Victims' Commissioner Dame Vera Baird and the Information Commissioner's Office with demands that police leaders revise the controversial evidence consent forms policy, which it is feared will deter rape victims from coming forward.

The latest barrage of criticism comes just days after MPs applied pressure on police to halt controversial trials of facial recognition technology, arguing lack of legislation called into question their legal status.

The Commons Science and Technology Committee challenged the accuracy and bias of the testing, urging a moratorium until a framework for the “proper use, provision and regulation of biometrics and forensics” had been established after opponents, including the ICO, warned significant privacy and data protection issues still remain to be addressed.

Calls to withdraw the digital disclosure consent forms come as nearly 100,000 officers and staff are said to have received updated training with 10 groups – Big Brother Watch, Amnesty International, Centre for Women's Justice, End Violence Against Women, Fawcett Society, Justice, Liberty, Privacy International, Southall Black Sisters and the Survivors Trust – lining up to challenge police searches.

Amnesty International UK's women's human rights manager Chiara Capraro said: "We're deeply concerned that the police are infringing the privacy of victims while also contributing to dangerous myths and stereotypes about rape.

"The whole dysfunctional system for dealing with the survivors of sexual violence needs urgent attention if we're to even come close to protecting the rights of thousands of women and girls in this country."

Harriet Wistrich, director of the Centre for Women's Justice, said: "Many women are fearful of reporting rape for a variety of reasons including the fear they will be disbelieved or judged.

"The requirement to hand over the whole of their data history is an additional disincentive to a massively under-prosecuted crime."

Their call is also backed by the Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales, who branded the searches an "incomprehensible intrusion" into victims' privacy.

Dame Vera added: "Unless they sign the entire contents of their mobile phone over to police search, rape complainants risk no further action on their case.

"These are likely to be traumatised people who have gone to the police for help.

"Brave and public spirited enough to contemplate giving the most intimate evidence at court, many are discouraged by what looks like scrutiny of whether they are suitable or worthy."

Today Big Brother Watch is launching a new report in Parliament claiming the policy is unlawful and needs urgent reform.

Its report said the digital searches are "highly likely to infringe victims' data protection and privacy rights" and are "causing major delays to investigations".

Its director Silkie Carlo said no victim of crime should have to make a choice between "privacy and justice".

She added: "These digital strip searches are a gross invasion of victims' privacy and an obstruction of justice.

"Understandably, many victims are refusing to be violated in this way. But no victim should have to make a choice between their privacy and justice."

Big Brother Watch will also deliver a petition with more than 35,000 signatures to Policing Minister Nick Hurd and Crown Prosecution Service, calling for the policy to be changed.

The Information Commissioner's Office said: "We have serious concerns about the extraction of mobile phone data by the police and how that impacts people's privacy rights under data protection law.

"This is a priority area for us and our investigation into this activity, which has been ongoing since August, will be concluding soon with the findings published in due course."

Concerned Lords in Westminster have backed crime commissioners in fearing a "loss of confidence" in the police over controversial evidence consent forms allowing officers to examine the phone data of rape victims.

The National Police Chiefs' Council said it will look at Big Brother Watch's suggestions and the Information Commissioner's findings once its investigation is completed.

Its lead for criminal justice, Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave, added: "Police have a duty to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry in every investigation and to meet the disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act.

"We believe that the best way of meeting our obligations is asking for consent to search for particular, relevant material.

"The new form is intended to ensure this is done properly and consistently across the country.

"We recognise the concerns of some privacy and victims' groups and have been seeking advice from a wide range of groups to help us improve the process."

View On Plice Oracle

 

[Billy Blue Tac 170]

No system is perfect, nor can it ever be, but this is a prime example of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I understand their concerns but there have been far too many failings with digital disclosure to not re-think how it's managed.

Without knowing the full circumstances surrounding an allegation it is nigh on impossible to ensure both complainant and suspect are treated equally and fairly, so Blackstone's ratio is the obvious end result:

"Tis better that ten guilty persons escape justice than that one innocent suffer."

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Billy Blue Tac

[Indiana Jones + 1,103]

People need to understand that the police are just operating within the framework set by the courts and parliament.

[Zulu 22 + 4,630]

If you deny access then you can be denying Justice. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

[SimonT + 1,194]

Let's get the campaign groups around the table with the cps and moj and get their help in sorting it all out. 

I don't want to download a phone, but if I don't I lose the rape case. The public, including the pressure groups want more convicting of sex offenders. How do we solve this, I say give it to the pressure groups. Its their issue now. 

[BlueBob + 700]

4 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

If you deny access then you can be denying Justice. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

As I understand it, That’s not really their message or issue.  The issue is that your whole digital life can and apparently has been exposed to the very people they are the victims of, exposing not just what is relevant to the case, but their whole life.  The scenario of domestic abuse being well mentioned where the victim, having tried to make a new life is again exposed and disrupted for the release of unrelated info.  

I’d see it as being rather like a police officer having to release ALL of their social media comments..... one missed phrase or association or link suddenly being released to a defendant to be scrutinised for private as well as work activities.  Quite unsettling.

[Ether + 1,424]

14 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

If you deny access then you can be denying Justice. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

Quickest way to a police state  

[Ether + 1,424]

16 hours ago, Billy Blue Tac said:

No system is perfect, nor can it ever be, but this is a prime example of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I understand their concerns but there have been far too many failings with digital disclosure to not re-think how it's managed.

Without knowing the full circumstances surrounding an allegation it is nigh on impossible to ensure both complainant and suspect are treated equally and fairly, so Blackstone's ratio is the obvious end result:

"Tis better that ten guilty persons escape justice than that one innocent suffer."

 

I have been involved in these type of offences and it’s difficult, especially where the offence is a domestic one, you need to dig much deeper into their communications to identify when offences took place and what was said post. 

However, not having that data is not an excuse to not continue with an investigation, you aren’t prosecuting what’s said between them. It’s an overreaction to the Met cases last year. 

Equally, there are no real limitations placed upon the police when exploiting digital media, no scale and no real control. You are asking a vulnerable person for their permission to access their entire online life, most will agree to anything, because they want help.  

[Jimbo26 + 199]

The government could resolve this simply by changing the disclosure rules. 

[Ether + 1,424]

58 minutes ago, Jimbo26 said:

The government could resolve this simply by changing the disclosure rules. 

There is absolutely o reason to, a case can still go to court without phone evidence. 

A victims refusal is not a valid reason alone to stop a prosecution 

[SD + 700]

5 hours ago, Funkywingnut said:

There is absolutely o reason to, a case can still go to court without phone evidence. 

A victims refusal is not a valid reason alone to stop a prosecution 

^^This^^

It is the CPS who make  the decision to charge rape cases not the police. If there’s no suggestion from the victim that there was communication via social media/phone and there’s no defence statement then there’s no reason to trawl through a victims phone. If the CPS ask for it get THEM to justify it. This isn’t rocket science and nothing needed changing. The assumption that ALL victims need their phones downloading is evidence of poor policing practice and makes us look incompetent.

Edited July 24, 2019 by SD
Poor spelling!

[MajorDisaster + 579]

Let's be honest, most of the shrieking is being done by militants who will only be truly happy when the presumption shifts and it becomes incumbent on the accused rapist to prove his innocence.  It 'infringes your privacy' well boo-hoo, it might also prevent someone going to prison for something they did not do.

[David + 4,981]

Let's not forget the dozens of absolutely innocent accused in all of this.

Far too often victims have lost everything and their name marked for life despite being innocent when accused of rape by a quite willing (at the time) partner who then decides it was a mistake on their part. If phone messages help prove guilt, who can deny a fair trial if it also proves innocence?