Latest news with #stripsearch
The Independent
a day 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.
BBC News
a day 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.
The Independent
2 days 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
2 days 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.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- General
- Daily Mail
Black schoolgirl, 15, was 'physically violated' by Met Police officers who strip-searched her on suspicion of carrying cannabis while on her period, misconduct hearing is told
A black schoolgirl was 'physically violated' by three Met Police officers who strip-searched her after wrongly suspecting she was carrying cannabis, a misconduct hearing was told. The 15-year-old girl, known as Child Q, had arrived at the school in Hackney, East London, for a mock exam when she was taken to the medical room to be strip-searched while teachers remained outside. The hearing was told the search involved having to undress herself, including her underwear, leading to the 'exposure of her intimate parts'. This is despite the schoolgirl telling officers she was menstruating, the hearing was told. Her bag and blazer were also searched, and after this did not lead to any drugs being found, she then had her hair combed, revealing no signs of cannabis. Breaches of the Met's standards of professional behaviour amount to gross misconduct and can lead to dismissal. Elliot Gold, representing the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is bringing the case, said the search formed part of a 'no stone unturned' approach, despite it being an incident that, he argued, 'could never have justified such intrusion, namely the possible discovery of a small amount of cannabis'. Trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge, PC Victoria Wray and PC Rafal Szmydynski all deny gross misconduct over their treatment of the girl. All three officers were PCs at the time of the search, which caused outrage over Child Q's treatment and led to protests outside Stoke Newington Police Station. Today, Mr Gold told the hearing the point where Child Q said she was on her period should have been the 'opportunity' for the 'officers to reconsider the necessity and proportionality of the search' but they instead told her 'we are all women here' and thereby treated Child Q as an adult rather than a child'. The incident happened in December 2020 when 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. 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. PCs Linge and Szmydynski carried out a search that exposed the girl's intimate areas, despite the act being described as 'disproportionate in all the circumstances,' according to the allegations. PCs Linge and Wray are also accused of carrying out, or allowing, the search in a manner seen as 'unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate, humiliating and degrading.' All of this happened without authorisation, without an appropriate adult and no adequate concern being given to Child Q's age, sex, or the need to treat her as a child, it is also alleged. PCs Szmydynski and Linge are also accused of giving a misleading account of the incident afterwards. No formal record of the search was made at the time, neither in the officers' pocket notebooks nor on the standard stop-and-search form, which would typically be required for any street-level stop and search. 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'. Mr Gold said that any 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. 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.' 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. When no drugs were found after the strip search, Child Q's hair was also scoured. 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.'
