Police face new laws that will ban intrusive searches of rape victims’ personal records and phones under a government shake-up to reverse plummeting prosecution rates.
So we’re to deliberately reduce the ability of the defence to find the evidence that hedidn’tdoneit.
Well done that man, very well done.
But if it hinges on ‘he said she said’ won’t the chap in question have that evidence too..?
And his defence produce it in a ‘gotcha!’ moment?
No doubt they’ll also ban search of the accused’s records too? So they’ll just have to accept his unsupported denial as well.
Julia:
Not necessarily. She could, for example, text a third party with a post-seduction account of how happy she was. Or even that she was thinking of crying rape to get money from someone.
@Sam Vara: oh, true, true….
But given the farce of the Mandy trial, it seems that juries aren’t as likely to convict in cases where the women are obvious slappers anyway.
There is no way of knowing whether such requests are “unnecessary” or “disproportionate” until the evidence has been gathered so the purpose here is to warn the police off investigating both accuser and accused equally rigorously.
The purpose is surely to have a fat feminist political thumb on the scales of justice.
Presumably this doesn’t apply to Jockland. But it’s bullshit like this that’s the reason they’re trying to get rid of the Not Proven verdict. Proving things is hard.
Obviously the Establishment thinks – because feminists have told them – that not enough men are being convicted of rape, so they’ve decided to rig the game.
I think men will need to wear body cams on dates to ensure that they have enough evidence that they did not do anything wrong.
Or maybe it will go like the Fry and Laurie piece with the lawyers and the couple trying to arrange a date.
And as the numbers prosecuted increase, they’ll be screaming as the proportion convicted drops. If you are pushed to prosecute more and more you’ll prosecute more and more marginal cases where the evidence is weaker and weaker, so increase the proportion where the evidence doesn’t support a conviction.
Which, naturally, will result in a demand for the law to be changed for accusation to be proof.
Fun thing is, the same type of femminnist is moaning loudly that they can’t find a decent man anymore…
No Shit, Shirley.. No sane male would walk into a trap knowingly and voluntarily.
And that Decent Man that ticks your Boxes? He can spot a trap a mile away, and can easily get a woman that’s not a frustrated, oppressive harridan.
@Grikath
Most feminists do not look after themselves and they dress badly as well.
Doesn’t this just open the system up to a flood of appeals and mistrials ?
If it “vomes to light” as these things often do, that the actual offence was really consensual or that the victim contributed in some way, we then have the justice system clogged with compensation and private prosecution.
But it looked good in the papers and the BBC, I suppose, so that’s alright then.
Every Feminist I’ve made has had more red flags than a Chinese May Day parade, so unless it’s a bit of drunken slap-and-tickle, nowt’s happening on that front.
A friend of mine that I used to go out drinking with claimed rape after going home with a bloke. I had to go to the police, last known contact and all that, did the she waved goodbye and seemed happy bit, and was asked if they could check my phone. Which I was fine with (my recollection of timelines was a little sketchy, shall we say). Nothing ever came of it, I still don’t know what really happened. He said, she said, indeed.
If you want to read about an appalling miscarriage of justice just look up the case of Cardinal Pell in Victoria. The media, politicians, police, lawyers, judges and jury had him jailed for sex crimes he clearly couldn’t have committed.
Eventually he was cleared by the Oz supreme court (or whatever Aussies call it).
To be clear: I assume that many Roman Catholic cardinals would benefit from a spell in pokey but you really shouldn’t base that outcome on transparent lies by a “victim”.
@jgh you described what’s happening
Wasn’t one of the cases overturned a few years ago involving the police not revealing mobile phone evidence one where it only came to light when the accusers sister came forward to point out texts she’d had received from the accuser about the incident which clearly showed it was consensual
Of course they don’t mean “plummeting prosecution rates”. They mean the low rate of conviction. It is hard to understand the stupidity of politicians, but easy enough to measure!