Disputes over late disclosure by police of crucial evidence in rape and sex offences led to scores of cases collapsing this year.
Well, it’s simple, isn’t it? Don’t collect it!
A concern is the Stafford statement, the consent form victims are asked to sign giving police access to their personal data. Material subsequently disclosed can include highly sensitive records such as medical, education, psychiatric, social service and family court reports.
“These statements are often signed in the immediate aftermath and shock of the crime, and, we are told, victims can often be unclear as to what they are consenting to and why,” Dipple-Johnstone said.
Wait, I can’t keep up. Are women strong and empowered and taking charge of their destiny, or helpless babes in the wood who need to be protected from the consequences of their actions?
Which is it this week?
Griff Ferris, the legal and policy officer at Big Brother Watch, said: “We welcome the information commissioner’s announcement of a high-priority investigation into demands for rape victims’ mobile phones and private records.
“We also urge the police and the CPS to take action to protect victims of rape from these digital investigations, which are swamping police in irrelevant information and obstructing the prosecution of potentially dangerous offenders.”
But it wasn’t ‘irrelevant information’, was it, if it lead to someone not being wrongly convicted of a crime?
Wouldn’t you think an organisation calling itself ‘Big Brother Watch’ would want to ensure a fair trial, and not the railroading of a potentially innocent man..?
“Treating victims like suspects is an affront to justice and a serious breach of people’s privacy rights. This broken system must change.”
When was it decided that privacy rights were more important than a fair trial? Did I miss another memo?