Text messages and sexual assault cases
In cases of sexual assault, digital communications such as text messages are often pointed to as evidence of the nature of the relationship between complainant and defendant. But even though it might be assumed that this kind of “hard evidence” is convincing, the way these communications are presented and used in court determine how much weight they play in a case.
Paulette Benton-Greig, a senior lecturer at AUT Law School, was interviewed about this issue in recent interview with The Spinoff. Paulette shared the findings of a study she contributed to, in which researchers observed the role of texts and other such digital communications in 40 adult rape cases.
“In the courtroom, in the court trial process, my observation was [records of digital communication] weren’t particularly supportive of complainants. In fact, it was often used against them,” says Paulette. She pointed in particular to several cases involving texts that appeared to be apologies from the accused, noting, “What you would think was a slam dunk in terms of evidence just was not.”
Part of the problem, says Paulette, is the shorthand often used in text and digital messages. Emojis and similar abbreviations (e.g., “OMG” and “LOL”) are “totally context dependent” and that context can be presented differently by the parties. Further, says Paulette, “The courtroom, because it’s a very black and white, decontextualised place, doesn’t do a very good job of taking into account gender dynamics or understanding notions like safety.”