men 'me to' ?

Moving back to the subject of the post: maryelisa you asked why men should be allowed anonymity in connection with accusations of sexual offences. I don’t think there is any good reason. The issue may be more around whether it is right that those who make such accusations should remain anonymous. The argument is, I think, that without anonymity women will be too frightened or embarrassed to approach the police. But does giving the accuser anonymity encourage false accusations? Would the accuser in the case in the news have made the accusations if she thought her name would be in the public domain? And in the same way that refusing the accused the cover of anonymity allows the police to “shake the tree” to see if any others make similar accusations, could refusing anonymity to the accuser result in exposing “serial” accusers?
In terms of the issue around police failure to disclose, this seems to me to be the result of a combination of unfair legal procedure rules and under resourcing. The police have substantial advantages over the defence in terms of the ability to gather evidence. They are required to be impartial but it’s hard to believe that many are not primarily driven by the need to secure convictions, which must drive many decisions around who to interview, what evidence to look for etc. If every team included an officer specifically tasked with ensuring all points that might help the defence were fully investigated, I’m sure that would help. In addition, all evidence gathered should be shared with the defence as a matter of course, not just items which the police decide are relevant.

The woman sent texts asking for casual sex and talking of violent sex and rape fantasies.

That does not automatically mean that this woman was not raped.

Far North I read she specifically texted that the sex was consensual. But as a general principle I agree - its often not clear one way or the other.

There’s a lot to think about there Fitzy thank you. Re your very last point - the problem with this is that in the past it has been seriously misused occasionally in that the defence has been absolutely swamped (deliberately) with so much disclosure that it hasn’t been able to see the wood for the trees and hasn't the resources to sift through it all. With rape trials specifically, there is a dreadful legacy with how women have been treated by the CJS - until quite recently, the woman could be cross examined in excruciating detail by her alleged rapist if he was unrepresented - women said it was like being raped all over again. Rape everyone seems to agree is a very underreported crime and so we just haven’t got a clear picture of it cf car thefts for which the figures must be very accurate. As for the John Warboys case, once he was named lots of dots were joined which made charging him and securing the conviction happen which wouldn’t have otherwise. Certainly better resources for the police and CPS could help but also attitudinal change is still necessary - juries are more likely to convict if the woman has been badly injured during the rape and yet some women ‘freeze’ or are compliant to avoid injury or even death and this is then questioned. What I do believe is that this case can not lead to a change in the law - hard cases make bad laws

Re the texts and the assumption that some have made that this automatically means she was not raped - that is exactly the sort of argument made so often in court - ‘she often had casual consensual sex so clearly she did so with my client etc etc’.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/19/victims-rape-spared-ordeal-cross-examination-court

About changes in women being cross examined by their alleged rapist

Sorry wrong link - it’s about live cross examination - will try and find the one I meant to post

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/new-law-to-protect-rape-victims-due-next-month-710547.html

Here it is - it changed in 2000 which is longer ago than I thought ( I must be getting old)

Fitzy, she may well have said that in texts but that doesn't mean that a rape did not happen to her.

But we all know that the media will be cherry picking from the texts. If she’s given evidence, then there should be an examination of the evidence to see if she committed perjury - you would imagine the texts would play a significant part in this decision but are not necessarily determinative. If she hadn’t given evidence, then she may be charged with wasting police time. But texts saying it was consensual don’t necessarily prove she was lying. What the non disclosure of the messages means is that the realistic prospect test is failed as hher credibility is probably undermined. Listening to radio coverage this evening reminds me again of the muddle people have about thinking that not guilty means automatically that the accuser was lying = it doesn’t necessarily, it means that the prosecution have not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt which is not the same thing at all. This happened with the Ched Evans case at the retrial - the young woman in this case never even accused him of rape - she always said she was too drunk to remember- she certainly never lied but some people still insisted she should have been punished.

Mary I agree with you generally about evidence, but on balance stick to my views about appointing an officer to concentrate on the defence, and on the idea of full disclosure - though if there were an officer dedicated to the defence case that might be sufficient to ease my concerns on the disclose issue.
In terms of the texts in the case in question, to my mind this man was innocent beyond reasonable doubt! Chad Evans is a much better example of the point you make. In general, it’s inevitably unclear, hence the problem with prosecuting rape trials - the evidence is so often limited to one person’s word against another. Given the (quite proper) standard of proof required in criminal cases, that will normally result in an acquittal, if indeed any prosecution will be brought at all.
But I think the police issue is much more wide ranging than in its application to rape cases. This is an issue with all criminal cases. I have no doubt at all that there are many people who have been convicted of all sorts of offences who would not have been if the police had been as strongly incentivised in favour of the defence as the prosecution in both their investigation and the disclosure exercise. This isn’t me having a pop at the police, but human nature is what it is.

Another similar case reported in the paper today, involving the same officer! In any event the CPS are quite rightly reviewing their procedures. Watch this space I guess.

One of the issues is the way in which Police officers are moved between various specialisms. This means the additional training, the skills and experience gained when working in for example, one of the teams specialising in the investigation of sexual abuse and exploitation of children/adults, or domestic abuse in its many forms are lost rather than built on. When the first child abuse units were set up, many officers didn't want to be moved onto them because they saw that work as less likely to enhance career prospects than murder/serious crime etc. Additionally, the work is complex isn't it.
The detective responsible for the two cases under discussion sounds to be unsuited for this work. He may also be unsuited to investigating any crimes given his attitude to the law.