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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll