Police ‘will not rush' to ban trans officers from strip searching women
Police chiefs 'will not rush' to ban trans officers from strip-searching women despite the Supreme Court ruling that sex is biological.
Forces have been accused of a 'stunning lack of urgency' after saying they would not immediately respond to the ruling.
A day after the landmark ruling on Apr 17, Chief Constable Rachel Swann, the diversity lead of the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), told forces it 'welcomed the clarity' but insisted 'we will not rush our response'.
On Saturday, an NPCC spokesman told The Telegraph that, in the absence of national guidance, 'forces should make decisions [about strip searches by trans officers] on a case-by-case basis'.
The Telegraph understands that, in practice, this means opposite-sex strip-searches are still allowed in territorial forces across the UK.
This marks the first time forces beyond British Transport Police have clarified their policies on trans strip-searches following the ruling.
Sussex, Merseyside, Northumbria and Surrey Police all confirmed trans officers could still conduct strip or intimate searches on detainees who share their gender identity, but not their biological sex.
Trans people in custody, likewise, may be searched by officers in line with their gender presentation.
All four forces told The Telegraph that their local policies were under review.
The NPCC, which has issued no national guidance on this issue for 15 months, is also reviewing its approach.
In internal communications on Apr 17, Chief Constable Swann thanked senior officers for their 'patience' saying: 'I welcome the clarity that the decision at the Supreme Court has provided and will be reviewing our policies and procedures in accordance with the outcome.
'However, we will not rush our response to this landmark ruling. We will need time to consider the full implications of the court's decision, as will many other public bodies.'
'Keep calm and carry on'
Rank-and-file officers have voiced deep frustration at this stance.
A female officer from Northumbria Police described the NPCC position as 'keep calm and carry on – we hate this ruling and are looking at options to circumvent it.'
The whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, said: 'The messaging we're getting as officers reveals a stunning lack of urgency. There's no rush to review policy.'
Some forces' internal communications echo the national call for patience.
A joint Surrey and Sussex Police intranet statement issued Apr 17, which quotes the NPCC, said the forces 'are not announcing any changes to our practices and policies until the full ruling is released and assessed'.
Both currently allow strip-searches based on either biological sex or the gender identity of individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate.
In Sussex, memos revealed officers were additionally told the 'complexities of this ruling are far greater than has been publicly acknowledged'.
Support offered to trans staff
Nationwide, senior officers also took the opportunity to offer support to trans staff.
Both Sussex Police and the National LGBTQ+ Police Network recommended Mermaids – a charity censured by the Charity Commission for 'mismanagement' and distributing chest binders to children without parental consent – as a resource for officers' families.
Whistleblowers claim no equivalent support has been offered to female or lesbian, gay and bisexual staff who may have faced discrimination for holding gender-critical views.
One female officer said the police's internal messaging made women feel they 'just don't matter at all'.
She criticised leadership for showing 'no contrition' and failing to acknowledge 'the harm done to women's rights and the homophobia demonstrated by the embrace of gender ideology and the conflation of sex and gender'.
Merseyside Police, which adopted a strip-search policy based on gender identity in April 2024, told staff: 'We police without fear or favour, malice or ill-will to ensure the safety and security of all members of our community and will continue to do so.'
Gender-critical officers interpreted the reference to 'malice' as a veiled criticism of their views.
The NPCC withdrew its national strip-search guidance – which endorsed gender self-ID – in January 2024, following backlash from gender-critical campaigners.
These groups, including the Women's Rights Network, which campaigns for single-sex rights, said such searches breach the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which states officers 'may not' conduct intimate or strip searches on 'a person of the opposite sex'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
US judge prevents Trump from invalidating 5,000 Venezuelans' legal documents
May 31 (Reuters) - A federal judge prevented the Trump administration from invalidating work permits and other documents granting lawful status to about 5,000 Venezuelans, a subset of the nearly 350,000 whose temporary legal protections the U.S. Supreme Court last week allowed to be terminated. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco in a Friday night ruling, opens new tab concluded that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem likely exceeded her authority when she in February invalidated those documents while more broadly ending the temporary protected status granted to the Venezuelans. The U.S. Supreme Court on May 19 lifted an earlier order Chen issued that prevented the administration as part of President Donald Trump's hardline immigration agenda from terminating deportation protection conferred to Venezuelans under the Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, program. But the high court stated specifically it was not preventing any Venezuelans from still challenging Noem's related decision to invalidate documents they were issued pursuant to that program that allowed them to work and live in the United States. Such documents were issued after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in the final days of Democratic President Joe Biden's tenure extended the TPS program for the Venezuelans by 18 months to October 2026, an action Noem then moved to reverse. TPS is available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. Lawyers for several Venezuelans and the advocacy group National TPS Alliance asked Chen to recognize the continuing validity of those documents, saying without them thousands of migrants could lose their jobs or be deported. Chen in siding with them said nothing in the statute that authorized the Temporary Protected Status program allowed Noem to invalidate the documents. Chen, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, noted the administration estimated only about 5,000 of the 350,000 Venezuelans held such documents. "This smaller number cuts against any contention that the continued presence of these TPS holders who were granted TPS-related documents by the Secretary would be a toll on the national or local economies or a threat to national security," Chen wrote. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday. Chen ruled hours after the U.S. Supreme Court in a different case allowed Trump's administration to end the temporary immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants under a different Biden-era program.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Give trans staff extra breaks to adjust underwear, NHS LGBT group suggested
An LGBTQ+ group within an NHS hospital trust drew up plans to give trans staff extra breaks if they wore chest binders or had to tuck their genitals away. In draft guidance seen by The Telegraph, an LGBTQ+ staff network within the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Trust (UH Sussex) said trans colleagues 'may require extra scheduled breaks in their shift in order to have breaks from binding and tucking'. However, the trust said the new proposals, which also said women-only spaces should include trans women, had been dropped in February and would not be pursued following the Supreme Court ruling last month. Judges ruled that the Equality Act referred to biological women and biological sex, rather than those choosing to identify as a woman. But critics said the draft guidance raised concerns about the time spent by NHS staff on working up and consulting on these types of policies. The NHS has no specific advice for trans people who wear chest binders or tuck their genitals, but the actions are considered controversial by some because of the harm they can cause. Chest binding is when a woman wears an item of clothing to compress their breasts to look more like a man, while the 'tuck' involves pushing the testes and penis back between the legs to appear more female. Both can cause infections, inflammation and other health problems, doctors have warned, which in some cases can be irreversible or lead to infertility in biological males. The proposed guidance said: It is understood that employees in the UH Sussex LGBTQ+ staff network had written the 15-page document last year and sent it to other groups for consultation. One former employee at the trust said: 'If we're going to make allowances for people who have to use the toilets to change and do this, that and the other, should we not be making allowances for women with heavy periods, or people who have to pray three times a day? Why are we making allowances for one group of staff over everyone else?' Dr Alice Hodkinson, a co-founder of Biology in Medicine, a doctors' campaign group, said people binding or tucking were 'risking medical and psychological harm'. She said tucking male genitals 'between the buttocks can cause pain, inflammation, fertility problems and testicular torsion', while 'binding can cause chest and spine deformities, cysts, infections and difficulties breathing'. Dr Hodkinson added that testicular torsion 'is a surgical emergency requiring an immediate operation to preserve fertility and sexual function', saying: 'The UK National FGM Centre considers breast flattening to be a form of child abuse.' 'Disgraceful coming from a healthcare body' Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, a human rights charity, said the proposals for 'employees who are self-harming in pursuit of the impossible goal of sex change should never have made it onto paper, even as a draft'. She added: 'Tucking genitals and binding breasts are culturally motivated actions that cause permanent physical damage, just like breast ironing and the use of neck coils. The only difference is that self-harm in the name of trans identity is high status and fashionable. 'This blatant attempt to normalise such a harmful practice is particularly disgraceful coming from a healthcare body. It is a relief to know that NHS Sussex won't be taking it forward.' The draft guidance also told staff they should try and understand the impact of cross-sex hormones on any trans colleagues and their mood. 'It is also helpful to gain an understanding of if there are certain times that are better or worse for their mood and wellbeing e.g. when someone is prescribed testosterone, energy levels and mood can be lower towards the end of a medication cycle, and can vary greatly on the type of preparation,' it said. 'Feminising hormones can require a lot more consultation to achieve an appropriate dosage, and may similarly impact mood and energy levels.' UH Sussex said it had never had a policy on this and that this draft had been rejected in February, after being reviewed by management. A spokesman for the trust said: 'This draft paper is not trust policy or guidance, it never has been, and never will be. 'A colleague submitted it to a manager in February, for consideration, but it was not accepted.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
'Psychopathic' killer wins fight to get back into the community early
A convicted killer, who has been described as a 'psychopath' and 'pyromaniac', has won a legal appeal to apply for parole earlier than planned. Queenslander Rodney George Anderson, who is now in his 70s, was convicted of murder twice between 1995 and 2000. A Restricted Prisoner Declaration, issued on June 5, 2023, by former parole board president Michael Byrne KC meant he could not apply for parole for eight years and six months. The legal order, which prevents a prisoner from making a regular parole application, meant Anderson could not submit a request until December 6, 2031. But on Friday, Anderson's appeal against the order on the grounds of his 'human rights' and 'right to dignity' was successful in Brisbane's Supreme Court. Anderson murdered Ethel Adamson, 77, in her home in Brisbane 's southern suburb of Moorooka in June 1995. He then attempted to set the house on fire, according to court documents from 1998. '(Ms Adamson) had been viciously assaulted but the medical evidence suggested that death was probably not immediate,' the documents read. Anderson was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in October 1997. Three years later, he was sentenced for murdering another prisoner by using a television cord to strangle them because they were 'irritating' those around him, the court heard on Friday. The Supreme Court heard Judge Byrne considered both murders, which he said 'demonstrated gratuitous violence', when issuing his restriction declaration. A factor he also cited was psychiatric evidence which demonstrated Anderson had a 'psychopathic personality with poor impulse control', the court heard. The evidence also found he had 'high levels of aggression'. 'The prisoner had demonstrated a lack of any true guilt or remorse for his behaviour which was in line with his psychopathic personality,' Judge Byrne said. The court heard that, in 2023, no one challenged the conclusion Anderson was a 'psychopath and a pyromaniac who continues to pose a moderately high risk of violent recidivism'. In considering Anderson's appeal on Friday, Justice Rebecca Treston said the killer was not arguing Judge Byrne's declaration but the order's length of time. Anderson's legal team based their argument on the decline of the prisoner's health. 'The applicant places particular emphasis on the fact that his medical needs are likely to significantly deteriorate in the future,' the court heard. 'And even if his needs cannot be properly met in the corrective services environment, he will not be able to apply for parole until December 6, 2031.' Anderson suffers from a range of chronic conditions, including a benign tumour at the base of his brain, type-2 diabetes, epilepsy and chronic kidney disease. The court heard that, in 2023, a senior medical officer of the Wolston Medical Centre recommended Anderson would need medical support outside of the prison system. 'The patient's needs are likely to become more difficult to meet in the corrective environment and his care may be more appropriately managed in a supported community or nursing home setting,' they said. Justice Treston told the court she thought the length of the prohibitive order had been made 'without explanation' and ruled in favour of Anderson's appeal. 'I find that the period imposed under the Restricted Prisoner Declaration of 23 June 2023 is invalid and should be set aside,' she said. She will hear from both parties at a later date regarding the suitable length of time for the order.
