Our Mission
When police act on one side of a story — when screenshots go unverified, when the actual victim's own report goes uninvestigated, when a Community Resolution is obtained by misrepresentation — the criminal justice system becomes a tool of harm rather than protection.
Victim Not Suspect exists to challenge that. We document systemic failures in how digital evidence is handled, advocate for reform, and provide resources for anyone navigating a system that has misidentified them as the perpetrator.
Our work spans four interconnected areas: digital evidence standards, DARVO dynamics in online conduct cases, police accountability, and the disclosure framework. Everything we do is grounded in research, data, and evidence.
Griffiths, Piasecki, Carr, Anderson & Wilson
Northumbria University Digital Forensics Project, 2024
What We Address
Screenshots submitted without metadata, platform verification, or chain of custody. Devices held for years without examination. Forensic illiteracy among investigators, prosecutors, and courts. Evidence that could exonerate — never sought, never disclosed.
In online conduct cases, the person who reaches law enforcement first is often treated as the victim regardless of the underlying facts. The real victim's own reports go uninvestigated. Impersonation accounts go unexamined. The system becomes a tool of abuse.
Unlawful arrests. Misuse of Community Resolutions. Failure to investigate victim reports. Safeguarding ignored. CMHT communications unanswered. Complaints paused under sub judice cover while prosecution proceeds. We document these patterns and push for structural reform.
Defence-critical material not disclosed. Platform data never requested. Witness statement versions undisclosed. Exculpatory evidence on seized devices — never examined after more than a year. The disclosure regime as applied to digital evidence is systematically broken.
Our Evidence Base
The Northumbria University Digital Forensics Project (2024) is the most comprehensive study of digital forensics across the criminal justice system to date. Presented to the Home Office-led Forensic Science Reform Programme Board, its findings underpin our reform agenda.
Key findings:
The Courts and Tribunals Bill proposes to remove the right to elect Crown Court trial for either-way offences. The Northumbria report specifically calls for an urgent review of digital evidence practice in magistrates' courts. These two developments are on a collision course — and we are raising this directly with Parliament.
There are no mandatory requirements to seek platform verification, metadata, or IP data before charges are brought in cases relying on screenshot evidence. Screenshots can be fabricated or captured from impersonation accounts. Without forensic verification there is no reliable basis for determining authorship.
Community Resolutions are intended as low-level informal disposals. They are being used as tools of coercive control — obtained by misrepresentation, overlapping with criminal charge windows, and accepted without investigation of the underlying facts.
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Well-documented in domestic abuse literature and increasingly visible in online harassment cases. Police training rarely addresses it; digital evidence failures make it easier to execute.
Parliamentary Work
We submit evidence to parliamentary committees, respond to consultations, and engage with legislators on the reform agenda. We are not aligned to any political party.
Our submission to the Justice Committee addresses Clauses 1–7 (jury trial removal) and the specific risk of wrongful conviction in digitally-evidenced cases heard without adequate forensic standards. A second submission window is open via the Public Bill Committee until 28 April 2026.
Five recommendations including exempting digitally-evidenced cases from jury trial removal until mandatory forensic standards are in place. Justice Committee submission made 11 March 2026 (ref YAG640344). A second written evidence window is open via the Public Bill Committee until 28 April 2026.
Richard Wright KC's independent review of stalking law for the Home Office examined whether the legal framework adequately covers technology-facilitated stalking and whether harassment and stalking legislation works as a coherent whole. The evidence inbox has now closed and the full report — including recommendations — must be submitted to the Home Secretary by the end of March 2026.
We are monitoring this review closely. Our work on digital evidence failures in stalking prosecutions, victim misidentification, and DARVO dynamics is directly relevant to its scope. We will engage with the Government's response when published.
The MoJ is consulting on a new Code of Practice for Victims of Crime under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. We are preparing a submission on the position of victims wrongly identified as suspects — a category the draft Code does not address.
The draft Code focuses on victims who report crimes. It makes no provision for victims who are themselves wrongly investigated or prosecuted. We are preparing a submission to close this gap and address digital evidence handling in victim communications.
A Government Bill currently in the Lords. At Committee Stage, an amendment (Chakrabarti/Arbuthnot) was tabled to remove the common law presumption of computer reliability in criminal proceedings — a legal presumption that enabled the Post Office Horizon scandal. The amendment was withdrawn following a Government commitment to ask the Lord Chancellor to write to the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to develop new procedural safeguards.
The computer evidence amendment was withdrawn on a Government commitment — not defeated. The Government committed to ask the Lord Chancellor to write to the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to develop new procedural safeguards for digital evidence. We are monitoring this commitment and will engage when the Committee consults. The Bill also extends the Victim Contact Scheme to stalking and harassment victims and gives the Victims' Commissioner power to investigate individual cases exposing systemic failure.
Published 18 December 2025, the Strategy commits to specialist investigation teams in all forces, a National Centre for VAWG and Public Protection, expanded stalking risk assessment, and independent stalking victim advocates. Parliamentary scrutiny is expected; we will engage when a formal inquiry is announced.
A wide-ranging Home Office Bill in active Lords Report Stage. Contains strengthened Stalking Protection Orders (SPOs) — including amendments clarifying the civil standard of proof and availability at conviction or acquittal — a statutory "Right to Know" for victims about their stalker's identity, and police reform provisions including centralised digital forensics (currently 20,000 devices awaiting analysis nationally). Lords Report Stage has been sitting since 25 February 2026 with amendments still being tabled.
Sir Brian Leveson's two-part review found that massive digital evidence volumes are a key driver of the 75,000-case Crown Court backlog, and recommended specialist courts for sexual offences, improved digital evidence management, and prioritised RASSO case listing. Many recommendations are being implemented via the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
The Northumbria University report (2024) called for mandatory standards for digital evidence in magistrates' courts. The Home Office Policing Reform White Paper (January 2026) proposes a Police.AI national centre (£115m) and centralised forensics to address the national backlog. We are monitoring the Government's response.
Would place a statutory duty of candour and assistance on public authorities and officials — including police — at inquiries and investigations, with criminal offences for those who mislead the public. Directly relevant to police accountability in wrongful prosecution cases. The Bill stalled in January 2026 over provisions affecting intelligence services and has not yet returned to the Commons. The Lords debated exclusion of MPs and Peers from the misleading-the-public offence on 26 February 2026.
Jonathan Fisher KC's independent review of the criminal disclosure regime published 45 recommendations in March 2025. It found that the exponential growth of digital material has created a disclosure crisis, with resource and training failures leaving investigators unable to manage digital evidence effectively. The Government committed to a response "later in 2025" — that response remains outstanding. Part 2, focused on fraud offences, is underway.
The Fisher Review is the first independent examination of how digital evidence is disclosed in criminal proceedings. Its findings on investigator training failures and device backlogs directly support VNS's evidence base on digital forensic failures in stalking and harassment prosecutions. We will engage with the Government's response when published.
These are the primary sources that matter in cases of wrongful prosecution arising from digital evidence failures — documents decision-makers use, and which strengthen any challenge to systemic failure.
The most comprehensive study of digital forensic practice in England and Wales. Found that examiners frequently lack tools to verify social media evidence, and that courts proceed on an assumption of reliability that is not warranted. The evidential foundation of our parliamentary submissions.
Read the report →Jonathan Fisher KC's 45-recommendation review for the Home Office on the criminal disclosure crisis caused by digital evidence volumes. Directly relevant to CPIA failures, device backlogs, and the absence of disclosure standards for social media evidence.
Full report on GOV.UK →The joint IOPC, HMICFRS and College of Policing investigation into police handling of stalking. Found evidence of systemic failures across all forces. Every force was required to publish a public action plan by November 2024 — those plans can be used to hold forces accountable.
College of Policing response →Every police force in England and Wales published a stalking action plan in November 2024. These set out what each force committed to improving. If your force's response to a stalking report fell short of those commitments, the action plan is evidence of the standard they were required to meet.
NPCC progress update →Every police force is independently graded across nine areas including protection of vulnerable people, investigation quality, and responding to the public. PEEL reports are public. If your force was graded as requiring improvement or inadequate in relevant areas, that is evidence of systemic failure.
Find your force's report →The Ministry of Justice's open data platform covering prosecution rates, conviction rates and outcomes by offence type for England and Wales. Stalking and harassment data is available here and can contextualise individual cases within systemic patterns of under-prosecution or misidentification.
data.justice.gov.uk →The National Archives' free searchable database of judgments from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and other courts and tribunals. Essential for finding decisions relevant to digital evidence, police accountability, and wrongful prosecution.
caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk →The parent legislation for the new Victims' Code currently under consultation. Sets out the statutory framework for victims' rights in the criminal justice system, including the right to information, access to services, and the ability to challenge decisions that directly affect them.
Legislation on legislation.gov.uk →FOI Research Programme
We use Freedom of Information requests to build a systematic picture of how police forces handle digital evidence, device retention, victim reporting, and civil settlements.
Requests are published in full — questions asked, responses received, and analysis where data permits. Results are available for researchers, journalists, lawyers, and campaigners to draw on freely.
We also encourage individuals to make their own requests via WhatDoTheyKnow.
Digital forensic examination rates · Device retention timescales · Civil settlement values by claim type · Community Resolution oversight and appeal rates · Victim misidentification data
Data compiled from Freedom of Information requests submitted to police forces across England and Wales by multiple researchers and journalists, including Public Interest Lawyers and Byline Times (2023–2025).
| Year | Total UK Police Compensation | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 2019/20 | £14.2m+ | Baseline year — partial data from 41 forces |
| 2020/21 | £16.8m+ | — |
| 2021/22 | £29.3m | Highest recorded single year |
| 2022/23 | £22.5m | Some forces provided partial year data |
| 2023/24 | £18.2m | Highest single-year figure in more recent data |
| Five-year aggregate (41 forces) | £79.4m+ | Source: FOI data, Public Interest Lawyers / Byline Times analysis |
Individual force data varies significantly depending on force size, claims culture, and recording practice.
| Force | Period | Payout / Claims | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metropolitan Police | 2023/24 | Largest single force; 39 individual settlements over £15k in 6 months | MPS FOI disclosure, Nov 2023 |
| West Yorkshire Police | 2021–2023 | Multiple six-figure payouts; wrongful arrest and data protection categories | FOI / PIL research |
| Greater Manchester Police | 2019–2023 | Among top five highest-paying forces nationally | PIL / Byline Times |
| Avon & Somerset | 2019–2023 | Significant property damage and arrest-related claims | PIL / Byline Times |
| Merseyside Police | 2019–2023 | Consistent payout levels; data protection and wrongful arrest | PIL / Byline Times |
| Claim Type | Typical Range | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Property damage (inc. forced entry) | £100 – £5,000 | Most frequent category nationally |
| Wrongful arrest / false imprisonment | £1,000 – £15,000+ | Second most common; significant variation by force |
| Data protection / UK GDPR breach | £500 – £5,000 | Rising category as digital evidence expands |
| Assault / excessive force | £2,000 – £30,000+ | Includes custody-related incidents |
| Serious misconduct | £10,000 – £50,000+ | Fewer cases; higher individual values |
Sources: Public Interest Lawyers FOI research (2025); Byline Times analysis of 41 forces (April 2023); Metropolitan Police FOI disclosures (2023–24).
Live Intelligence
Live feeds require a desktop browser
The Justice Committee scrutinises the work of the Ministry of Justice and related bodies. It is currently conducting legislative scrutiny of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Latest news from Justice Committee → Courts and Tribunals Bill scrutiny →Misconduct999 tracks police misconduct hearings across all 43 forces in near real-time, publishing daily hearing reports, force archives, and original FOI research.
Latest hearings at Misconduct999 → @M999Wire on X →The Independent Office for Police Conduct oversees the police complaints system in England and Wales. Latest publications include force complaint statistics and investigation outcomes.
IOPC latest on GOV.UK → policeconduct.gov.uk →Accountability
Police misconduct proceedings and IOPC complaints data are a matter of public record. We track national trends and link to authoritative sources. We do not publish details of individual ongoing investigations.
The IOPC's most recent annual data (April 2024–March 2025) records the highest number of complaints since the watchdog began collecting data under current legislation.
Misconduct999 is an independent investigative news agency that tracks police misconduct hearings, disciplinary outcomes, and criminal proceedings involving officers across all UK forces in near real-time.
It publishes daily hearing reports, force-by-force archives, and conducts original FOI research — including forcing the MOD Police to release 21 previously unpublished hearing determinations after exposing a transparency gap in early 2026.
Police misconduct hearings are separate from and independent of criminal proceedings. They apply a civil standard of proof ("on the balance of probabilities") rather than the criminal standard.
In August 2025, the IOPC published force responses to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust super complaint on police handling of stalking. All 43 forces were required to publish action plans following 29 recommendations.
VNS tracks these responses as part of our ongoing monitoring. The super complaint addressed failures to protect stalking victims — a distinct but related issue to the wrongful prosecution of actual victims that is our primary focus.
Help & Information
This is not legal advice. If you are currently facing criminal charges, seek qualified legal representation as a first priority.
What happened and what comes next.
How it should be handled — and how it often isn't.
What they are, and how they are misused.
The process and its limitations.
The prosecution must disclose material that assists your defence.
Being charged does not extinguish your victimisation.
Links & Resources
National stalking awareness charity. Operates the National Stalking Helpline and submitted the landmark super complaint on police response to stalking (2022–2024).
suzylamplugh.org →The full published report, all 29 recommendations, and every force action plan from the HMICFRS/IOPC/College of Policing investigation into policing of stalking.
GOV.UK publication →The 2024 study on digital forensics across the criminal justice system. The most comprehensive research to date. DOI: 10.25398/rd.northumbria.25395655
Read the full report →The independent body overseeing the police complaints system in England and Wales. First point of escalation after PSD.
policeconduct.gov.uk →Human rights and civil liberties organisation. Works on police accountability, surveillance, criminal justice, and the right to a fair trial.
libertyhumanrights.org.uk →Free platform for making FOI requests to UK public bodies. All requests and responses published publicly, building a searchable national record.
whatdotheyknow.com →Your MP can raise concerns with the IOPC, Home Office, and MoJ, and table parliamentary questions to force public answers on systemic failures.
parliament.uk →PCCs oversee their force's complaint handling and can raise systemic concerns directly with Chief Constables.
apccs.police.uk →Free, independent advice on legal rights, complaints, and benefits. A practical first step if you don't yet have legal representation.
citizensadvice.org.uk →Get In Touch
For media, research collaboration, or general questions about our work:
info@victimnotsuspect.org
We welcome engagement from parliamentarians, researchers, and policy professionals working on criminal justice reform, digital evidence standards, and victim rights.
We are not solicitors and cannot provide legal advice. If you are currently facing charges, seek representation first. Our Help & Information section provides a starting point.
If you have experienced the failures we document, we may be able to include anonymised accounts in our research — subject to your case not being active. We will never publish identifying information without explicit consent.