The Crown Prosecution Service have been under immense pressure to reverse the falling conviction rates for rape and sexual assault. The policy for the CPS to not prosecute weak cases has had no significant effect, as the conviction rate in 2018 was only 1.7%. Over the recent years there has been growing concern for victims of these kinds of assaults and it has received global media coverage from campaigns like MeToo; however, the conviction rate is at its lowest in a decade. This has revealed that there must be a fundamental flaw in the justice system and has lead to desperate and brutish methods to change this, for example forcing victims to hand over their phones.

The motive behind this change most likely stems from R v Allan in 2017, where the case against the defendant was dropped when new evidence from the alleged victims phone cast sufficient doubt on the charges of rape. Quite rightly this case received large amounts of criticism and suggestion as to how deeply we must test the evidence and how the use of mobile phones in this modern world should be reflected in the court room. Ultimately leading to the implementation of the consent forms, which allows police detectives to take and download all information off the victims phone.

In regards to the above case this does seem like a positive step in the right direction, but it’s important to remember that we cannot assume the worst in people and assume the majority will act like the minority. The above situation is rare and these subsequent consequences can have a damaging impact, by possibly preventing victims from coming forward and allowing serial rapists to be free and also causing further severe trauma for the victim.

By handing over their phone the victim is not only being put on trial, but her whole life is essentially exposed and subjected to criticism and ridicule. There is no limit on the period the phone will be taken for and this can range from a few hours to several months, but also the data downloaded isn’t only from the date of the attack and onwards, but dates back to seven years. This is clear evidence that this technique isn’t about discovering the truth, but its about creating an opportunity for the victims credibility to be manipulated and destroyed by using the victims past actions to justify the defendants.

There is an evident sense of tragic irony as the victim must sign a consent form before handing over all their personal information, but yet numerous victims have been told that without handing over the phone their case will most likely be dropped. This creates an impossible ultimatum in deciding between justice and privacy and leaves the victim in a psychological turmoil. Whilst Max Hill, the Director of Public Prosecutions, suggested that these measurers will be taken ‘only when reasonable and proportionate’, the lack of evidence and witnesses in sexual offences ensures that this reasonability will be more common than not and so places the burden of the investigation onto the victim.

This policy puts the victim on trial and makes their personal history the crime. It encourages people to blame the victim and decide if she was asking for it, rathe than is the defendant guilty? This intent to find the victim a criminal is the clearest and yet most ignored reason for the CPS’s failure.