.png)
6 hours ago
2
Two police officers who were involved in the strip-search of a black teenager at her school have been found to have committed gross misconduct.
The search at a school in Hackney, east London, was “disproportionate, inappropriate and unnecessary” and made the girl, known as Child Q, feel degraded and humiliated, a panel concluded at the end of a four-week misconduct hearing.
But the panel, chaired by a senior police commander, found that race was not found to have been a factor in the police officers’ decision to subject the 15-year-old to the search, and nor was it found that she was treated as an adult. A third officer was found to have committed a lesser offence of misconduct.
Outrage over the schoolgirl’s 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.
Amid suspicions on the part of school staff that she smelled of cannabis, she was taken to the medical room to be strip-searched while teachers remained outside. No cannabis was ever found.
The search, which was carried out without her mother being informed, involved the removal of her clothing including her underwear and her bending over. She was menstruating at the time and had told officers but they still proceeded with the search.
The three officers, trainee detective constable Kristina Linge, PC Victoria Wray and PC Rafal Szmydynski, had all denied gross misconduct.
Allegations of gross misconduct were found by the panel to have been proven in the case of Szmydynski – who the panel said had taken a leading role throughout the interactions with school staff and Child Q, although he was not in the room for the search – and Linge, who was a PC at the time.
The panel, chaired by the Met commander Jason Prins, also found they had failed to ensure that an appropriate adult was present during the search, failed to obtain senior officer authorisation and failed to provide the child with a copy of the search record. They also did not respect her rights as a child.
Wray was found to have been in a “fundamentally different position” and engaged in misconduct but her failure to challenge or question colleagues did not satisfy the threshold for gross misconduct.
In a rare move, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) had instructed the lawyers presenting the case against the police officers and had put forward the case that pace and lack of accountability were at the heart of why and how the teenager was strip-searched.
Elliot Gold, for the IOPC, told the panel on Thursday that the consequences of the incident had been to do damage and “real harm” to the relationship between the police and black communities.
He added that other harms had been caused in respect of the ability and willingness of schools to seek help from the police, which he suggested would be affected in future.
He also spoke of the harm caused to Child Q, who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and whose education had been severely affected.
Amanda Rowe, an IOPC director, said the incident had had a “significant and long-lasting impact” on the wellbeing of Child Q, who was now a young woman.
She added: “This case also led to widespread public concern, and we have heard directly from a range of community stakeholders about the impact that this incident has had on trust and confidence in policing.”
On the back of its investigation, the IOPC has made recommendations to the Home Office to amend strip-search laws to improve child safeguarding measures, including introducing a mandatory safeguarding referral for any child subject to a search exposing intimate parts.
Reacting to the panel’s findings, Met commander Kevin Southworth said what happened to Child Q “should never have happened and was truly regrettable”.
“While the officers involved did not act correctly, we acknowledge there were organisational failings. Training to our officers around strip-search and the type of search carried out on Child Q was inadequate, and our oversight of the power was also severely lacking,” he added.
“This left officers, often young in service or junior in rank, making difficult decisions in complex situations with little information, support or clear resources to help their decision-making.”
