Claire* was 18 when she was raped by a man she had gone on a first date with. She reported it to the police the next day and her phone was seized as part of the investigation.
During the two-year investigation, Claire was asked by the police to provide access to large amounts of sensitive personal records, which included medical and counselling records and notes by her Independent Sexual Violence Advocate (ISVA). Claire was not comfortable with this and felt she had no option but to consent.
The man was charged and the case was due to go to trial. However, shortly before the trial date she was told that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided to drop the case. Her ISVA contacted Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ) for advice. CWJ thought that it may be possible to put forward a legal challenge to the CPS’s decision and referred the case urgently to a solicitor and a barrister on their legal reference panel. They threatened to take legal action against the CPS and put forward detailed reasons why the evidence was strong enough for a trial to go ahead. As a result, the case was reviewed by a senior prosecutor who overturned the decision and agreed that the case should go to trial, though it was delayed by another year.
Before the trial police told Claire that the defence lawyers had asked for a further download of her mobile phone. Claire felt that this was another invasion of her privacy, but feared that if she refused the case would be closed. Her ISVA approached CWJ again and one of their in-house solicitors wrote a letter to the police explaining why the request was unlawful and did not meet the rules for disclosure of evidence to the defence. The request was withdrawn as a result.
The case eventually went to trial, Claire gave evidence and the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to five and a half years’ imprisonment.
* not her real name
Please consider supporting our work.