Telephones, Trauma, Trials and Truth

One step forward… two steps back: this seems to be the way in which our criminal justice system usually operates.

Innocent: Liam Allan

From late 2017 into early 2018, the mass media was buzzing over the shortcomings of prosecution disclosure in rape and other sexual offences trials. There was much hand-wringing and outrage over cases like that of student Liam Allen who – but for the grace of an honourable barrister, Jerry Hayes, acting on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – might well have been convicted wrongly of an allegation of rape that never was. In fact, evidence recovered from Mr. Allen's accuser’s mobile phone completely undermined her false accusations and revealed that he himself had been the real victim, of harassment. Understandably, there were widespread demands for major improvements with regard to the disclosure of evidence to the defence, in the interest of fair trials and justice.

Fast forward to 2019 and even a very modest proposal by the new Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Max Hill, and the College of Policing, seeking to achieve a uniform approach by police forces wishing to access the mobile phones and other digital data of complainants, has managed to provoke loud wails of outrage from vocal campaigners. Some have asserted that the very act of police requesting such access will discourage complainants who have alleged rape, or other forms of sexual assault, from coming forward. The shrillest responses are even likening these requests to assist the police with their inquiries as being akin to a ‘digital strip search.’ Nothing like a wildly emotive catchphrase to whip up an online feeding frenzy, eh?

The hot-air fuelled miasma is being stoked eagerly by certain sections of the national press, whose journalists are peddling outright lies via their sensationalist headlines. The Guardian – rarely a byword for impartiality on these matters at the best of times – wins first prize for claiming that rape victims’ phones would be 'seized' by police. Notice the emotive verb 'seize'. Aside from being untrue – the new system simply allows police to request access – The Guardian felt it necessary to add fuel to the flames of ‘woke outrage' by also repeatedly using the term ‘victim’, long before anyone has even been charged or convicted. After many complaints online, the editors backed down and amended the incendiary headline to read ‘complainants’. However, the bogus claim about phone ‘seizures’ still remains online.

Baroness Newlove

Others who should know better, including outgoing Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Newlove and various ‘victim’ support groups, along with privacy campaigners – such as Big Brother Watch – have weighed into the debate (albeit with very different motives). It seems that everyone is entitled to an impassioned view - other than victims of false sexual allegations, of course. As usual, this category of victim is completely ignored and disregarded because such people are 'the wrong sort of victims' of crime in modern day Britain.

While the proposal for police investigators to request access to complainants’ phones applies to any type of criminal case, it is entirely predictable that the only protests achieving national media coverage concern sexual allegations. I’ve not come across people who claim that they’ve experienced online fraud, car theft, GBH, robbery or burglary now demanding that their mobile phones be sacrosanct during police inquiries. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of genuine victims of crime would be only too happy to assist the police with their investigations – including handing over mobile phones – if it meant there might be a better chance of PC Plod collaring the vile little toe-rags who injured or robbed them. Far better, surely, than just being issued with a crime reference number and a shrug of the shoulders, as is often standard practice.

Police downloading data

However, those alleging sexual assault seem to have an army of vocal campaigners willing to twist or misrepresent these latest modest proposals, in order to present them as ‘digital strip searches.’ I presume the reference to ‘digital’ has been chosen for reasons that are all too clear.

The overwhelming message being broadcast loudly by these single issue groups is that anyone – particularly a female – who makes an allegation of rape or sexual assault MUST be telling the truth on every occasion. Their account of events, no matter how bizarre or unconvincing, MUST be believed and NEVER challenged. Police should NEVER seek to investigate the ‘victim’ (i.e. the complainant) and NEVER dare to make a request to download anything from their mobile phones or social media accounts. To do so, no matter how politely phrased, must be seen as an act of vile, patriarchal aggression.

There has even been criticism of the latest plans on the grounds that such searches of mobile phones and social media accounts could lead to the evidence being used to prosecute the complainant for a range of unrelated crimes. This is certainly not the purpose behind this latest proposal. It is churlish in the extreme to state that the police will use their new powers to search through online activity to seek evidence for a separate prosecution. Unless, of course, the complainant is guilty of serious criminal activity, in which case it is right and just and proper that the police carry out their professional obligations without fear or favour.

Rape fraudster: Jemma Beale

It’s well worth recalling the fact that serial rape faker Jemma Beale, recently convicted and jailed for a well-deserved ten years after making a series of false rape allegations against nine different men, plus further accusations of sexual assaults against others, was brought to justice – in part – because digital evidence extracted by police from her mobile phone and social media exposed her as a sadistic fraudster and liar. Beale ‘gloried’ in her crimes and remains to this day utterly unrepentant. Yet, had detectives not checked her phone and gathered this damning evidence, it is entirely possible that more of her innocent victims would now be rotting in jail, while she waltzed away with many tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, courtesy of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA)

One thing that my own experience with compensation-grubbing liars and fraudsters has taught me is that many of these crooks are usually not very clever or sophisticated. They think nothing of allowing their masks to slip in text messages and posts in closed online chat rooms. Whole criminal conspiracies and compensation scams can be exposed if police both have access to these fraudsters' electronic communication devices AND disclose relevant evidence of such fraud to the defence.

A ransacked bedroom

It is also important to note that, while there are no proposals for police to ‘seize’ complainants’ phones and other electronic devices, I can state from first hand experience it is now entirely routine practice for anyone who has simply been accused of a sexual offence (without a smidgen of actual evidence) to have his or her home raided by a squad of police officers, often in the early hours of the morning. Once the suspect has been dragged out of bed and arrested, his or her house will be ransacked from top to bottom. Every personal item will be bagged up for subsequent scrutiny: every diary, every personal letter, every family photo album will be seized and piled into police evidence bags. Cherished books will be pulled from bookcases and thrown onto the floor. All electronic devices – mobile phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, cameras – will similarly be taken, to be closely and thoroughly scrutinised for potential evidence. And all this equally applies to the devices of family members living at the same address. Goodness only knows the effects of it all on any child who happens to live in the home.

This is not a ‘digital strip search’ as much as a literal one. Every vestige of dignity and privacy is systematically stripped away from a suspect and his or her family. Every aspect of the accused person’s life will be exposed and examined, from bank accounts to every personal piece of correspondence. And remember, this happens long before anyone has been charged, let alone tried in a court of law. A single complaint of an alleged sexual assault opens the floodgates to this devastating process.

House for sale

In the course of my current research, I’ve spoken to victims of malicious sexual accusations who say that they will never find happiness in their own home again. Some have felt compelled to move house, so unbearable is the trauma of the initial police search, carried out in the customary ruthless manner. Imagine experiencing a burglary, while you are present, with the full weight of the law behind those who are busy ripping your home apart.

Having been through that dehumanising and humiliating process myself, I find it deeply offensive that vocal campaigners feel it appropriate to describe a request from police officers for access to a complainant’s mobile phone as a ‘violation of privacy’ or a ‘digital strip search’. I experienced both during the twenty-two months I was kept on bail before I was acquitted in a matter of minutes by a unanimous jury, who delayed returning to court immediately out of respect for the judicial process. The two evil, compensation-grubbing fraudsters whose lies subjected me to all of this have walked away unscathed, with their anonymity protected, free to lie again should the fancy take them. And, of course, none of their electronic communication was ever looked at during the so-called investigation. Perhaps, if it had have been, I wouldn’t have lost my cherished teaching career.

The latest proposals regarding complainants’ communication devices might not prevent the victims of false allegations from experiencing the trauma of a police investigation, but where evidence is revealed of blatant lies, or even a conspiracy to defraud or pervert the course of justice, then this might prevent unnecessary and unjustified prosecutions being launched at enormous human and financial cost. Furthermore, as in the case of serial liar Jemma Beale, such evidence could prove vital in bringing other criminals to justice. I, for one, think this is a price well worth paying.