Latest news with #ChildQ
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Child Q: Met Police PC questions training for strip-searches
A Metropolitan police officer has told a misconduct panel that police training on conducting strip-searches in schools was "insufficient".Det Con Kristina Linge, PC Victoria Wray and PC Rafal Szmydynski all deny gross misconduct over their treatment of the girl known as Child Q in December 15-year-old was strip-searched at school by officers in Hackney, east London after she was wrongly suspected of carrying Rajon Rahman, who drove PC Wray to the school and remained outside the medical room while the girl was searched, told the independent panel on Tuesday that strip-searches were "covered very briefly" during training. PC Rahman said: "It was not gone into detail about it. There was mention of it, that it existed.""What I can say is the training or the learning in Hendon around that was insufficient in my opinion."The police training college for the Met is located in Hendon, north Rahman said that before the incident he had not attended a search at school before and had only been involved in "normal" searches, meaning of individuals on the street, and searches of a person in custody. The panel, being held in south-east London over three weeks, previously heard the girl was left feeling "demeaned" and "physically violated" by the is alleged that the strip search was carried out without authorisation, in the absence of an appropriate adult, and with no adequate concern being given to Child Q's age, sex, or the need to treat her as a child, and that the child's race was an effective Yard has previously apologised over the misconduct hearing continues.
The Independent
6 days ago
- General
- The Independent
School deputy safeguard did not expect girl, 15, to be strip searched by police
The staff member whose telephone call led to a 15-year-old girl being stripped searched by police at school while on her period said she did not ask for the intimate search. The deputy safeguarding manager said she was 'highly suspicious' that the black schoolgirl known only as Child Q, had cannabis on her but she called on the advice of the designated police safer schools officer (SSO) and 'absolutely' did not ask for a strip search. The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was giving evidence at the London misconduct hearing for Metropolitan Police officers trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge and Police Constables Victoria Wray and Rafal Szmydynski. All three officers were Pcs at the time of the search which allegedly took place without an appropriate adult present in Hackney, east London on December 3 2020. The safeguarding deputy told the hearing she was 'really shocked' when she later heard that the girl had been strip searched. Child Q was wrongly accused of carrying cannabis. Nothing was found. She had arrived at school for a mock exam, smelling of cannabis and was taken to the medical room to be strip searched while teachers remained outside. The police search involved the removal of Child Q's clothing including her underwear, her bending over and having to expose intimate parts of her body. Nothing was found when teachers searched Child Q's jacket, pockets, bag and shoes before police were called, the tribunal heard. Under questioning from Luke Ponte, for Linge, the safeguarding deputy accepted that she believed 'Child Q was stoned' and was 'very clearly out of it'. The safeguarding deputy spoke to the headteacher and called the SSO, who is a police officer that liaises with schools, for advice. She then called the force, telling the hearing: 'I believed that she had weed on her because I could smell it so strongly.' She thought Child Q could possibly have stuffed it down her shirt or hidden it in her bra but she told the panel she was not asking for a strip search. This was now a safeguarding issue and there were concerns for Child Q, who could potentially have been carrying drugs for someone else, being exploited or groomed and there was also the other students to look after, the tribunal was told. After speaking to the SSO, the safeguarding deputy thought that it was 'protocol' that a second female police officer was called to the school. The panel has heard that this 'most intrusive' form of search of a child should only be used where 'necessary and reasonable', must have authorisation from a sergeant, and involve an appropriate adult. It must also be recorded and two same sex officers are required if intimate parts will be exposed. Mr Ponte suggested the safeguarding deputy was 'adamant' that Child Q had illegal drugs on her when she contacted the police. The safeguarding deputy said: 'Adamant is the wrong word. Adamant comes across that I am 100% (certain). I am highly suspicious. I am of an opinion and have given it to the headteacher.' The safeguarding deputy said that in her call to the SSO there was 'no mention of any strip search' and she was advised to call the force on 101. She also doubted parts of the transcript of her 101 call to police, that was read at the tribunal, in which she was said to have called for a more thorough search. In the call the safeguarding deputy is said to have told the operator that 'it's evident that it (drugs) is on her' as she described her suspicions about Child Q carrying drugs. But the safeguarding deputy told the hearing: 'I cannot imagine saying that.' She also said she was not acting as an appropriate adult when she was outside medical room while the officers were alone with Child Q. She knew Child Q had been searched because the officers had said they found nothing but assumed it may have been a pat down. The context of making the call to the police was not a 'sinister and desperate attempt to get this student searched' which is the way she felt it was being presented to her at the tribunal. She said she did not remember telling the operator that she wanted a more thorough search. Mr Ponte told her: 'It is only the officers' decision making that matters in this hearing. I suggest to you that you wanted a strip search to happen that day.' The safeguarding deputy replied: 'Absolutely not.' Mr Ponte told her: 'You asked for a strip search to happen that day… You were aware a strip search was happening.' The deputy safeguarding said 'no' to both statements. She also denied Mr Ponte's suggestion she was 'not being entirely honest in your accounts and have tried to distance yourself from events that happened that day'. Pcs Linge and Szmydynski performed a search that exposed the girl's intimate parts when this was 'disproportionate in all the circumstances', according to the allegations. Pcs Linge and Wray also performed or allowed the search in a manner which was 'unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate, humiliating and degrading'. All of this happened without authorisation, in the absence of an appropriate adult, and with no adequate concern being given to Child Q's age, sex, or the need to treat her as a child, it is also alleged. It is also claimed that Pcs Szmydynski and Linge both gave a misleading record of the search afterwards. No contemporaneous record was made about the search, either in the officers' pocket notebooks or on a standard form – as would be routine for any stop and search in the street.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
School deputy safeguard did not expect girl, 15, to be strip searched by police
The staff member whose telephone call led to a 15-year-old girl being stripped searched by police at school while on her period said she did not ask for the intimate search. The deputy safeguarding manager said she was 'highly suspicious' that the black schoolgirl known only as Child Q, had cannabis on her but she called on the advice of the designated police safer schools officer (SSO) and 'absolutely' did not ask for a strip search. The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was giving evidence at the London misconduct hearing for Metropolitan Police officers trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge and Police Constables Victoria Wray and Rafal Szmydynski. All three officers were Pcs at the time of the search which allegedly took place without an appropriate adult present in Hackney, east London on December 3 2020. The safeguarding deputy told the hearing she was 'really shocked' when she later heard that the girl had been strip searched. Child Q was wrongly accused of carrying cannabis. Nothing was found. She had arrived at school for a mock exam, smelling of cannabis and was taken to the medical room to be strip searched while teachers remained outside. The police search involved the removal of Child Q's clothing including her underwear, her bending over and having to expose intimate parts of her body. Nothing was found when teachers searched Child Q's jacket, pockets, bag and shoes before police were called, the tribunal heard. Under questioning from Luke Ponte, for Linge, the safeguarding deputy accepted that she believed 'Child Q was stoned' and was 'very clearly out of it'. The safeguarding deputy spoke to the headteacher and called the SSO, who is a police officer that liaises with schools, for advice. She then called the force, telling the hearing: 'I believed that she had weed on her because I could smell it so strongly.' She thought Child Q could possibly have stuffed it down her shirt or hidden it in her bra but she told the panel she was not asking for a strip search. This was now a safeguarding issue and there were concerns for Child Q, who could potentially have been carrying drugs for someone else, being exploited or groomed and there was also the other students to look after, the tribunal was told. After speaking to the SSO, the safeguarding deputy thought that it was 'protocol' that a second female police officer was called to the school. The panel has heard that this 'most intrusive' form of search of a child should only be used where 'necessary and reasonable', must have authorisation from a sergeant, and involve an appropriate adult. It must also be recorded and two same sex officers are required if intimate parts will be exposed. Mr Ponte suggested the safeguarding deputy was 'adamant' that Child Q had illegal drugs on her when she contacted the police. The safeguarding deputy said: 'Adamant is the wrong word. Adamant comes across that I am 100% (certain). I am highly suspicious. I am of an opinion and have given it to the headteacher.' The safeguarding deputy said that in her call to the SSO there was 'no mention of any strip search' and she was advised to call the force on 101. She also doubted parts of the transcript of her 101 call to police, that was read at the tribunal, in which she was said to have called for a more thorough search. In the call the safeguarding deputy is said to have told the operator that 'it's evident that it (drugs) is on her' as she described her suspicions about Child Q carrying drugs. But the safeguarding deputy told the hearing: 'I cannot imagine saying that.' She also said she was not acting as an appropriate adult when she was outside medical room while the officers were alone with Child Q. She knew Child Q had been searched because the officers had said they found nothing but assumed it may have been a pat down. The context of making the call to the police was not a 'sinister and desperate attempt to get this student searched' which is the way she felt it was being presented to her at the tribunal. She said she did not remember telling the operator that she wanted a more thorough search. Mr Ponte told her: 'It is only the officers' decision making that matters in this hearing. I suggest to you that you wanted a strip search to happen that day.' The safeguarding deputy replied: 'Absolutely not.' Mr Ponte told her: 'You asked for a strip search to happen that day… You were aware a strip search was happening.' The deputy safeguarding said 'no' to both statements. She also denied Mr Ponte's suggestion she was 'not being entirely honest in your accounts and have tried to distance yourself from events that happened that day'. Pcs Linge and Szmydynski performed a search that exposed the girl's intimate parts when this was 'disproportionate in all the circumstances', according to the allegations. Pcs Linge and Wray also performed or allowed the search in a manner which was 'unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate, humiliating and degrading'. All of this happened without authorisation, in the absence of an appropriate adult, and with no adequate concern being given to Child Q's age, sex, or the need to treat her as a child, it is also alleged. It is also claimed that Pcs Szmydynski and Linge both gave a misleading record of the search afterwards. No contemporaneous record was made about the search, either in the officers' pocket notebooks or on a standard form – as would be routine for any stop and search in the street.
ITV News
6 days ago
- General
- ITV News
Child Q: School deputy safeguard did not expect girl to be strip searched by police
The staff member whose telephone call led to a 15-year-old girl being stripped searched by police at school while on her period has said she did not ask for the intimate search. The deputy safeguarding manager said she was 'highly suspicious' that the black schoolgirl known only as Child Q, had cannabis on her but she called on the advice of the designated police safer schools officer (SSO) and 'absolutely' did not ask for a strip search. The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was giving evidence at the London misconduct hearing for Metropolitan Police officers trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge and Police Constables Victoria Wray and Rafal Szmydynski. All three officers were Pcs at the time of the search which allegedly took place without an appropriate adult present in Hackney, east London on December 3 2020. The safeguarding deputy told the hearing she was 'really shocked' when she later heard that the girl had been strip searched. Child Q was wrongly accused of carrying cannabis. Nothing was found. She had arrived at school for a mock exam, allegedly smelling of cannabis and was taken to the medical room to be strip searched while teachers remained outside. The police search involved the removal of Child Q's clothing including her underwear, her bending over and having to expose intimate parts of her body. Nothing was found when teachers searched Child Q's jacket, pockets, bag and shoes before police were called, the tribunal heard. Under questioning from Luke Ponte, for Linge, the safeguarding deputy accepted that she believed 'Child Q was stoned' and was 'very clearly out of it'. The safeguarding deputy spoke to the headteacher and called the SSO, who is a police officer that liaises with schools, for advice. She then called the force, telling the hearing: 'I believed that she had weed on her because I could smell it so strongly.' She thought Child Q could possibly have stuffed it down her shirt or hidden it in her bra but she told the panel she was not asking for a strip search. This was now a safeguarding issue and there were concerns for Child Q, who could potentially have been carrying drugs for someone else, being exploited or groomed and there was also the other students to look after, the tribunal was told. After speaking to the SSO, the safeguarding deputy thought that it was 'protocol' that a second female police officer was called to the school. The panel has heard that this 'most intrusive' form of search of a child should only be used where 'necessary and reasonable', must have authorisation from a sergeant, and involve an appropriate adult. It must also be recorded and two same sex officers are required if intimate parts will be exposed. Mr Ponte suggested the safeguarding deputy was 'adamant' that Child Q had illegal drugs on her when she contacted the police. The safeguarding deputy said: 'Adamant is the wrong word. Adamant comes across that I am 100% (certain). I am highly suspicious. I am of an opinion and have given it to the headteacher.' The safeguarding deputy said that in her call to the SSO there was 'no mention of any strip search' and she was advised to call the force on 101. She also doubted parts of the transcript of her 101 call to police, that was read at the tribunal, in which she was said to have called for a more thorough search. In the call the safeguarding deputy is said to have told the operator that 'it's evident that it (drugs) is on her' as she described her suspicions about Child Q carrying drugs. But the safeguarding deputy told the hearing: 'I cannot imagine saying that.' She also said she was not acting as an appropriate adult when she was outside medical room while the officers were alone with Child Q. She knew Child Q had been searched because the officers had said they found nothing but assumed it may have been a pat down. The context of making the call to the police was not a 'sinister and desperate attempt to get this student searched' which is the way she felt it was being presented to her at the tribunal. She said she did not remember telling the operator that she wanted a more thorough search. Mr Ponte told her: 'It is only the officers' decision making that matters in this hearing. I suggest to you that you wanted a strip search to happen that day.' The safeguarding deputy replied: 'Absolutely not.' Mr Ponte told her: 'You asked for a strip search to happen that day… You were aware a strip search was happening.' The deputy safeguarding said 'no' to both statements. She also denied Mr Ponte's suggestion she was 'not being entirely honest in your accounts and have tried to distance yourself from events that happened that day'. Pcs Linge and Szmydynski performed a search that exposed the girl's intimate parts when this was 'disproportionate in all the circumstances', according to the allegations. Pcs Linge and Wray also performed or allowed the search in a manner which was 'unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate, humiliating and degrading'. All of this happened without authorisation, in the absence of an appropriate adult, and with no adequate concern being given to Child Q's age, sex, or the need to treat her as a child, it is also alleged. It is also claimed that Pcs Szmydynski and Linge both gave a misleading record of the search afterwards. No contemporaneous record was made about the search, either in the officers' pocket notebooks or on a standard form – as would be routine for any stop and search in the street.
BBC News
6 days ago
- General
- BBC News
Child Q: School staff did not expect strip-search, panel told
A school staff member who called the police over a black pupil she wrongly suspected of possessing cannabis did not expect an intimate search to be performed, a gross misconduct panel has been deputy safeguarding manager at the school in Hackney where the girl, known as Child Q, was strip-searched by officers said the 15-year-old "smelt strongly of cannabis" and had turned up "stoned".Metropolitan Police officers Det Con Kristina Linge, PC Victoria Wray and PC Rafal Szmydynski all deny gross misconduct over their treatment of the girl in December search took place at the east London school without an appropriate adult present, the panel heard. The officers also failed to get authorisation at sergeant level or higher before they took action, it was panel, being held in south-east London over three weeks, previously heard the girl was left feeling "demeaned" and "physically violated" by the search, in which no drugs were Tuesday, the panel was told the examination exposed Child Q's intimate parts and that she was menstruating at the time - which she had explained to the deputy safeguarding manager, who is not being identified due to reporting restrictions, said she had been worried about the safety of Child Q and other pupils at the school as they were taking mock exams that day."I believed that she had weed on her because I could smell it so strongly," she told the panel."I thought it could be hidden somewhere else, maybe stuffed down her skirt. I thought it could potentially be in her bra." The panel heard that Child Q was suspected of possessing cannabis three weeks before and searched by school staff. No drugs were found. 'Following protocol' On the morning of the police strip-search, the deputy safeguarding manager said Child Q had told her that her taxi driver had smelt of cannabis while she was in a cab on the way to deputy safeguarding manager said she "didn't feel she was truthful and I wasn't expecting her to be honest"."It didn't even enter my head that they would be doing an intimate search," she said. She told the panel she was following protocol by calling the police, adding: "I just look to them to know what they are doing."If the officers are found to have breached professional standards amounting to gross misconduct they could be hearing continues.
