Latest news with #policeconduct
The Independent
7 hours ago
- General
- The Independent
Black schoolgirl, 15, ‘demeaned and physically violated' by police strip search
A black schoolgirl was 'demeaned' and felt 'physically violated' when she was strip searched at school by police while on her period after being wrongly suspected of carrying cannabis, a misconduct hearing for the three Metropolitan Police officers involved has heard. The girl, who was 15 years old at the time, will not being giving evidence at the three-week south-east London tribunal, 'because of the psychological effects that this strip search has had on her', the panel heard. Trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge, Pc Victoria Wray and Pc Rafal Szmydynski all deny gross misconduct over their treatment of the girl known as Child Q. 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 3 December 2020. Outrage over Child Q's treatment led to protests outside Stoke Newington Police Station after a safeguarding review revealed she had arrived at school for a mock exam and was taken to the medical room to be strip searched while teachers remained outside. On Tuesday Elliot Gold, for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) which is bringing the case, said: 'The search involved the removal of Child Q's clothing including her underwear, her bending over and, thus, the exposure of her intimate parts including, necessarily on the (IOPC) director general's case, her vagina and anus. ' Child Q was menstruating at the time, as she told the two officers who searched her, but they nevertheless proceeded with the search. It is not disputed that Child Q's sanitary pad was thereby exposed. 'The object was to search for cannabis. No cannabis was found.' The point where Child Q said she was on her period was 'an obvious opportunity for the two officers to reconsider the necessity and proportionality of the search' but they instead told her 'we are all women here', or said that they were all 'females', and thereby treated Child Q as an adult rather than a child', Mr Gold said. 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. The IOPC asked the panel to think of 'why the officers overreacted to such an extent and why their actions fell so far below what was required of them'. Black people were more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and discrimination is a 'contributing factor' in stop and search, it was suggested. Mr Gold also told the panel 'black schoolchildren are more likely to be treated as older and less vulnerable or in need of protection and support than their white peers'. He said: 'She was treated as being older than she was, more likely to be involved in criminality, and subjected to a more intrusive search, than she would have been had she been a white schoolgirl in the same situation, arriving at school, smelling of cannabis.' Mr Gold said that sacking the officers would be 'justified' if the allegations are proved, adding: 'Their actions and omissions have resulted in Child Q suffering harm to her mental health and feeling physically violated. 'They have caused Child Q and her mother to feel demeaned and disrespected. 'They have brought discredit on the Metropolitan Police and upset race-relations yet further between the police and minority communities.' The panel 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 if it concerns a child. It must be recorded and two same sex officers are needed if intimate parts will be exposed. The police went to the school after Child Q's teachers raised concerns about her smelling of cannabis that morning, just a few weeks after a similar incident. Both times her bags and blazer was searched and nothing was found. On this occasion, in December 2020 the school's safeguarding deputy alerted police saying that Child Q smelled of cannabis, could potentially be bringing drugs into the school and she might be at risk of exploitation in the community. A suggestion by the officers that the safeguarding deputy was acting as the appropriate adult, even though she was not present during the search, should be rejected, according to Mr Gold. He said: 'It was, or should have been, obvious to these officers that the safeguarding deputy could not act as the appropriate adult. 'On the officers' own accounts, the safeguarding deputy was the person who had summoned the police to the school, was Child Q's 'accuser', was adamant that the officers would find cannabis on Child Q's person and, so, was not a person who could reasonably be expected to challenge the police in their actions.' When no drugs were found after the strip search, Child Q's hair was also scoured. Mr Gold said this was part of a 'no stone unturned' approach and something that 'could never have justified such intrusion, namely the possible discovery of a small amount of cannabis'. He told the panel: 'Child Q is black. It is the director general's case that this kind of gross overreaction by the police – to strip search a school pupil on suspicion of something relatively minor, possession of cannabis – would not have happened to a white pupil and is, regrettably, explained by Child Q's race, whether or not the officers were consciously aware of this at the time.' Scotland Yard has previously apologised over the incident. The hearing continues.
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Black schoolgirl Child Q strip-searched by Met officers suffered mental harm, hearing told
A black schoolgirl suffered mental harm and felt 'physically violated' when she was strip-searched at school by police, a misconduct hearing for three officers has been told. The girl, who was 15 at the time and has been known as Child Q, was strip-searched in December 2020 at her school in Hackney, east London, while menstruating, having been wrongly accused of possessing cannabis. A hearing that could result in three Metropolitan police officers being sacked for their alleged part in it was told on Tuesday that she will not be giving evidence 'because of the psychological effects that this strip-search has had on her'. Three officers, who cannot be identified because of reporting restrictions, all deny gross misconduct over their treatment of her. All three were police constables at the time of the search, which allegedly took place without an appropriate adult present. Outrage over her treatment led to protests by hundreds outside a town hall and a police station after a safeguarding review revealed she had arrived at school for a mock exam and was taken to the medical room to be strip-searched while teachers remained outside. Elliot Gold, a barrister acting for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which is bringing the case, said: 'The search involved the removal of Child Q's clothing including her underwear, her bending over and, thus, the exposure of her intimate parts including, necessarily on the (IOPC) director general's case, her vagina and anus. 'Child Q was menstruating at the time, as she told the two officers who searched her, but they nevertheless proceeded with the search. It is not disputed that Child Q's sanitary pad was thereby exposed. The object was to search for cannabis but no cannabis was found, he said. The point where Child Q said she was on her period was 'an obvious opportunity for the two officers to reconsider the necessity and proportionality of the search' but they instead told her 'we are all women here', or said that they were all 'females', and thereby treated Child Q as an adult rather than a child, Gold said. He added that the two officers who went into the room also performed or allowed the search in a manner which was 'unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate, humiliating and degrading'. Gold also told the panel 'black schoolchildren are more likely to be treated as older and less vulnerable or in need of protection and support than their white peers'. He said that sacking the officers would be 'justified' if the allegations were proved, adding: 'Their actions and omissions have resulted in Child Q suffering harm to her mental health and feeling physically violated.' The alleged actions of the officers had brought discredit on the Metropolitan police and upset race relations yet further between the police and minority communities,' added Gold. Scotland Yard has previously apologised over the incident.
BBC News
13 hours ago
- General
- BBC News
Child Q strip-search was swept under carpet, hearing told
Three Metropolitan Police officers involved in the strip-search of a 15-year-old black schoolgirl have been accused of trying to "sweep the incident under the carpet".The girl, called Child Q to protect her identity, was wrongly accused of having cannabis and then strip-searched on her period, with no appropriate adult present, in Hackney, on 3 December the gross misconduct hearing, an independent panel heard evidence that trainee Det Con Kristina Linge, PC Victoria Wray and PC Rafal Szmydynski officially made a record of the search five weeks include that Child Q was discriminated against because of her race and sex. The officers all deny gross misconduct. The opening day of the hearings heard that no suitable appropriate adult was present during the search and the officers failed to get authorisation at sergeant level or higher before they took action, which goes against police policy. On the morning of the strip-search, teachers raised concerns and called the safer schools officer to report that they suspected Child Q smelt of turned up to the east London school 20 minutes later and the two female officers, PCs Linge and Wray, later carried out the intimate search. At one point, the panel heard that when Child Q told the officers she was menstruating, they told her "we're all women here" and she was ordered to bend over, spread her buttocks and cannabis was found and a panel heard that a further search of the Child Q's hair was carried out which also resulted in no drugs being found. The three officers are accused of "overreacting" and taking a "disproportionate no stone unturned approach" in a manner which was unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate, humiliating and also alleged that no adequate concern was given to Child Q's age and sex, especially after she removed her sanitary panel is also considering if Child Q's race was a factor and heard that black people are disproportionately more likely to be stopped and searched by Szmydynski and Linge are accused of making a misleading record of the search after its conclusion. The panel heard they were "reluctant and dismissive" about the details of the search, when it was reported on the police database weeks of Child Q's case were released in a safeguarding report in 2022 which led to widespread protests and calls for urgent action in panel heard that Child Q would not be giving evidence during these proceedings because she continues to experience trauma after feeling violated and humiliated by the the officers are found to have breached professional standards amounting to gross misconduct they could be sacked.
BBC News
13 hours ago
- General
- BBC News
PC ran red light and caused serious Bristol crash
A police officer has avoided jail for causing a crash which left a member of the public with serious injuries, which she is still recovering from almost two years Daniel Fortune, of Avon and Somerset Police, drove through a red light at speed while responding to a 999 call in an unmarked police car on Bristol's A4 Portway on 6 September driver of the vehicle he crashed into was seriously injured and a passenger in Fortune's Volvo XC90 was also 41, admitted causing serious injury by dangerous driving and was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, at Gloucester Crown Court on Monday. The officer was also banned from driving for a Supt Larisa Hunt, head of Avon and Somerset Police's professional standards department, said: "The collision left a woman with very serious injuries from which she's still recovering and our thoughts are with her."Police officers are expected at all times to follow national and local guidance, and their training, when responding to emergency incidents."She added that an accelerated misconduct hearing would be held later this was charged following an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which then referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service.
RNZ News
a day ago
- General
- RNZ News
Judge reserves decision on injunction on Jevon McSkimming investigation
Former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming. Photo: Getty Images A High Court judge has reserved her decision on whether the media should be allowed to report the nature of the allegedly objectionable material found on former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming's work computer. McSkimming resigned as the country's second most powerful cop last month amid a four-month investigation by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and police. His resignation came after Police Minister Mark Mitchell said he was recently informed of allegations of a "very serious nature", separate to the investigation that led to him being suspended. RNZ earlier revealed pornography found on McSkimming's work computer is being investigated as alleged objectionable material. He declined to comment on the allegations through his lawyer. His lawyer Linda Clark was earlier granted a rare "superinjunction" by Justice Grau that prohibited reporting the nature of the allegedly objectionable material, as well as the existence of the injunction itself. A teleconference was then held by Justice Gwyn from the High Court at Wellington to discuss the injunction with Clark, the police, and legal counsel for RNZ, Stuff and NZME. Following the conference, the order prohibiting publication of the nature of the allegedly objectionable material was continued, but the order prohibiting the existence of the injunction was not continued, meaning RNZ could report the fact of McSkimming's application and the interim result. On Tuesday, a hearing was held in the High Court at Wellington before Justice Karen Grau in relation to the injunction. RNZ, NZME and Stuff were jointly represented by Robert Stewart KC. McSkimming's lawyer, Linda Clark, began proceedings by telling the court she was seeking orders extending the current interim orders prohibiting media from disclosing the nature of the allegedly objectionable material reportedly found on his work device or devices. The order was sought until further orders of the court. Clark alleged information deemed "essential" to the investigation had been leaked to the media who were intending to publish the information. She said the orders sought were necessary to protect the rights of someone who is subject of an ongoing police investigation and who may yet be charged with a criminal offence. The information gathered during the police investigation was "confidential", she said. In relation to public interest, she said there was already information in the media about McSkimming. She said the public interest would be served in the event he was charged and stood trial. McSkimming was on notice that the police investigation was into material purportedly found on his devices. He had been told he would be invited to a formal interview, however, no request has been received to date. A police document, classified as "confidential", would be "the centrepiece of any criminal prosecution," Clark said. "It's on the basis of that information that the police can decide whether to continue the investigation, whether to look further and whether to charge, and what to charge." She said there was also an issue in terms of privacy, and said a person under criminal investigation, prior to being charged, has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to the investigation. Clark said she was trying to "preserve Mr McSkimming's rights to engage the Criminal Procedure act if and when he's charged". She said that every time police had provided some substantive piece of information to McSkimming it had appeared within the media "in a day or two days without exception". Clark said there was public interest in McSkimming's situation. She said public interest had been served to date. "If he is charged... there will be further opportunity for media to publish more information on charges themselves and during and after any trial," she said. "But publication now of any more information about the nature of the objectionable material found on his computer will cause serious and irreversible harm." It would harm his reputation, curtail his ordinary rights under the Criminal Procedure Act, and in the event he was charged and elected trial by trial, it could impact his chance of trial by jury. "At this time he's still an innocent man who is entitled to all of the protections of a fair trial and the right to seek suppression orders." Stewart KC said a memorandum from police said they were still investigating, and no charging decision had been made. He said there was two sorts of harm that could be considered, one of which was harm to the police investigation. He said the police had no concern that further disclosure of the material would impact their investigation, or impact their decision whether or not to charge. In relation to right to a fair jury trial, Stewart KC said juries can be trusted to obey judicial directions about only dealing with the charges based solely on the evidence and to ignore pre-trial publicity. In relation to privacy, Stewart KC said McSkimming was "quite clearly" a public figure. "There is a huge public interest in these investigations into Mr McSkimming's abrupt resignation from office, first working day after he had been provided with the material by the Public Service Commission." In an affidavit, McSkimming said he resigned because he didn't want the Prime Minister or anyone else having to see what was in the reports. "The only fair way of summarising it is he jumped before he was pushed," Stewart KC said. "The public have a right to understand a little bit more about the nature of the material that led to that." Stewart KC said his clients submitted that if the interim restraint should be continued, then "matters should be left to take their course, if there is to be any restraining at all, it should be as limited as possible for as short as possible." Crown prosecutor Stephanie Bishop, appearing for police, told the court that police did not oppose the application.
