[r_c_a_d]

I really don't think the people in charge are that clever. What is happening here is a reaction to recent cases like this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/liam-allan-met-p...

where a rape trial collapsed after text messages between the alleged victim and alleged attacker were "discovered" late in the process.

So this is an instance of "we have to do something" where the suggestion swings too far the other way. I assume after some debate we will settle on a sensible compromise position.

[mefsb]

What's really terrifying is that this guy's life was being ruined just because some woman later said that a sex encounter was "non-consensual", without any proof of that.

Instead of forcing people to give their mobiles, why not use the "innocent until proven guilty" age-old adage?

[Veen]

Instead of forcing people to give their mobiles, why not use the "innocent until proven guilty" age-old adage?

They aren't forcing people to give up their mobiles, merely saying that if a victim chooses not to, they are denying the police useful evidence. In the absence of other evidence, there's a risk that prosecutions won't go ahead.

The reason this is an issue at all is the presumption of innocence. The accused is presumed innocent and without evidence (which may or may not be on the phone) there is nothing the police or the courts can do.