Evidence Gathering

[CameronBennett80]

Hello,

My brother has been arrested on historic sexual abuse charges dating back 10 years.

He has been questioned and released on bail pending further investigations. My brother is innocent, we known that these allegations are being made up to get "revenge" on my family over a bitter dispute with the accusers family many years ago. He has explained this to the police but they are still going to carry out a full investigation, which I appreciate.

My question is this:

During the investigation, what is the likelihood that my brothers medical records are checked. We both come from an abusive background. We were both sexual abused by our late father and these memories have only recently come back to haunt my brother. He visited his GP in 2012 to talk about those distressing times, which were dead and gone, but in the light of recent media coverage of historic abuse stories, he has been brought back to the front of his mind. He received treatment from a psychologist, but all this history will have been recorded.

He is now scared that if the police want access to his GP records, they will put two and two together and assume he did it because he came from an abusive background.

Any advice will be much appreciated.

Thanks

Daisy

[CameronBennett80]

So, does the judgement of an GP not to act on what's been said, hold any weight with the authorities.

[woofgang]

ok as has been said
1 the police/ courts cannot get hold of the record
2 the record is not admissible anyway
and
3 such a decision (to take no action) would not be recorded. Either action would have been taken, or nothing would have arisen which would lead to the GP taking any action.

[CameronBennett80]

OK, Sorry.

My brother has a lot on his plate right now, I'm just trying to put his mind at rest and help him through this. It's not that we don't understand or believe any of the advice, it's just my brother keeps bugging me for clarification all the time because there is a lot of conflicting information out there, Thank you,

[stocktonlad]

Sorry to butt back in, I've read all the replies -

Cameron, Fred & WoofGang are correct, medical records (GP and Hospital) are classed as "excluded material" and fall under the protection of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Section 8 (1)(d)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/8

The bit I don't fully understand, and I think Cameron may have been hinting at it too (correct me if I'm wrong, Cameron), even if they were accessed, which we've established they can't be, why are they not admissible or relevant. Your medical record is a list of consultations, medications, treatments, etc, why wouldn't this stuff be useful. For example; A women reports a rape to the police, she tells them that she has a sexually transmitted disease, wouldn't the fact that the suspect may have received treatment for the same STD be useful and relevant.

[woofgang]

we don't all carry our own versions of STD's If the woman could name her attacker then DNA testing is legal, if not then the fact that they both have the same STD is irrelevant.

[CameronBennett80]

Thank you StocktonLad, useful link!!

Yes, you're right, my brother and I do find it hard to understand how medical records are not admissible, fair enough, they might not prove anything, but he is petrified that they could harm his defense, allowing people to draw the wrong conclusions. I know investigations are meant to be conducted around facts, but we have read horrible stories when the police and prosecutors cannot find actual physical evidence, they will try anything to tarnish a persons reputation, so called "character assassination".

[woofgang]

I find it hard to believe as well but there it is.

[FredPuli43]

stocktonlad, in the case of alleged rape that you give, the woman would give consent to her records being released and these would support her assertion that she had an STD. Thus, the evidence would be admitted.

[woofgang]

fred, i think that the suggestion was that the rapist could be identified or his guilt proved by his medical records showing that he had the same std as his alleged victim. its the rapists medical records that would be used as evidence, if i have understood correctly. As i said, i cant see it being much help as STD's arent't unique to people. DNA evidence if the victim hadnt washed would be much more convincing and admissible of course.

[stocktonlad]

Woofgang; that's what I meant in my example. I'm sure that information in the alleged rapists medical record that he'd received treatment for the same STD as his alleged victim, around the same time as the alleged rape would be evidence or relevant information.

[stocktonlad]

I'm sure that Cameron's brother is thinking that his medical records may not prove anything to do with the alleged offence, but they may help form a judgement as to his character. I do see where they are both coming from, it must be a very worrying time.

[woofgang]

stocktonlad, thousands of people a day get treatment for STD's It proves nothing.

[stocktonlad]

Woofgang, I totally understand what you're saying. I meant to add to my example, what if the alleged rapist denies the offence or indeed any sexual contact. I think the penny has just dropped, I suppose he could have contracted the STD from someone-else, doesn't have to be from the alleged victim. I get it now.