header-logo header-logo

01 May 2019
Issue: 7838 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Phone disclosure policy sparks concerns

‘Unnecessarily intrusive’ forms could deter victims from coming forward

Lawyers are preparing a legal challenge over controversial national consent forms that ask victims of crime, including rape and sexual assault victims, to hand over their phones and digital devices to police or risk a prosecution not being brought.

The forms state that, while crime victims can refuse consent and can explain why they don’t want to give consent, ‘it may not be possible for the investigation or prosecution to continue’ if they refuse.

Lawyers and groups representing victims believe the consent forms policy is unnecessarily intrusive and will deter victims from coming forward.

The Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ) is acting for two victims of rape affected by the type of consent form now rolled out nationally by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC). The complainants’ cases were dropped after they refused consent for disclosure of data on their mobile phones. The judicial review will be brought against the NPCC rather than the individual police forces concerned.

Harriet Wistrich, CWJ director, said: ‘Many rape complainants have raised this issue―the practice has been ongoing but not consistent across police forces―the change announced is a standardisation of practice.

‘We consider it may breach data protection principles, is an excessive and disproportionate invasion of privacy and is discriminatory as it will primarily impact women.’

Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch is likely to join the case as a co-complainant.

Responding to an urgent question in the House of Commons this week, policing minister Nick Hurd MP said the form, introduced this week, will ensure ‘consistency and clarity’.

A statement from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: ‘Mobile phone data, or social media activity, will only be considered by the police when relevant to an individual case.   

‘However, for an investigation to proceed and be fair for both complainant and suspect, all reasonable lines of enquiry must be pursued. Mobile devices will not be needed in every case―but when they are, there is explicit guidance that only material relevant to a particular offence may be pursued, to minimise unnecessary intrusion.’

The CPS reiterated that ‘strong safeguards are in place to prevent complainants being cross-examined on irrelevant sexual history’.

Issue: 7838 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll