Storage of evidence and delayed reporting after sexual assault: Rates and impact factors on subsequent reporting

Abstract

Background

Sexual assault (SA) is alarmingly prevalent, yet reporting rates remain disproportionately low. Forensic examinations (FE) play a crucial role in both immediate medical care and evidence collection, yet many victims/survivors may not report the crime initially, leading to the loss of vital forensic evidence. The storage of evidence “Option 3″ care alternative provides post-SA care including FE without initial police involvement.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study analysing the attendances of people who chose to store evidence at the Dublin Sexual assault Treatment Unit (SATU) between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2023.

Results

There were 238 storage of evidence FEs (‘Option 3’) performed during the study period, which represented 12.8 % of all FEs. The majority identified as female (89.1 %), with an average age of 26.6 years. 31.9 % attended within 24 h of the incident, and 51.3 % self-referred. Most assaults occurred over weekends (64.7 %), with alcohol consumption reported in 82.2 % of cases and drug-facilitated SA concerns in 20.2 %. Genital injuries were present in 17.9 % of females and 19 % of males.

Those that availed of storage of evidence (compared with those who initially reported to the police) were significantly more likely to have consumed alcohol (p < 0.001) and the assault was more likely to have occurred indoors (p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in care option choice for those ‘unsure’ of the assault occurrence (p = 0.353).

Among storage of evidence cases, 20.2 % subsequently reported to the police, with females more likely to report (p = 0.02), while people who were uncertain whether an assault had occurred were less likely to report (p = 0.04). Genital injury (p = 0.822), victim-assailant relationship (p = 0.465), assault location (p = 0.487), and substance consumption (p = 0.332) did not significantly affect subsequent reporting rates.

Conclusions

The availability of storage of evidence has afforded people the opportunity to access prompt, responsive SATU care including collection of forensic evidence which may have significant evidential value. This approach provides further opportunity for comprehensive detection of a crime, even if reporting to the police is delayed.