The High Court has ruled against Sex Matters in their case against the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and British Transport Police (BTP) over their “consensual” searching policies

Because it isn’t actually consensual.

That’s why the whole “consent” framing of these searches is stupid. No one would consent unless they were under duress.

'Without detriment'

The female Police officer we had on here a few months ago would beg to differ. The detriment will be subtle and definite.

What about the other side of it, female officers coming under pressure to search genderaddled males.

“If you are seen as a troublemaker or somebody who won’t toe the line, then you won’t get any further.”

Not to mention there's a law concerning this PACE, and the guidance is contrary to the law, if the coppers won't follow the law, why should anyone else.

They can refuse to be strip searched. They can be searched whether they like it or not.

It says in the guidance that the individual being searched, the officer searching, and the custody sergeant will sign to say consent has been given. Custody suites are also on camera, so the consent will have been recorded. Hard to say you didn't give consent after all that.

Exactly! I said that in the other thread, it can’t be considered consensual as it’s under duress. What happens when they withdraw it after the fact and claim they’ve been sexually assaulted?

And yes very disappointing result

There’s the Sex Matters podcast on this. I don’t think it’s necessarily male officers being patronising to female officers that creates the pressure - rather it just creates more work for everyone and therefore many female officers will feel under pressure to do what’s potentially the best for the team even if it makes them very uncomfortable.

This one alone should be enough to overturn this turnips judgement.

Well, quite! They can't just make up law to suite the wishes of TRAs. It's worrying how unclued-up some of these judges are.

@OneGreyScroller Female police officers are coerced all the time by male colleagues. "Now you wouldn't want to be the little trouble-maker that causes everyone so much hassle, would you?"

Seems like a lawful judgement to me.

Any member of the public can consent to being searched by anyone else. Police officers are members of the public with extra powers.

If someone consents to being searched by someone else and the person doing the searching consents, then I don't see the issue.

Now, if the person refuses to be searched, then PACE is engaged and the person will be searches by a member of their biological sex.

The judgement literally says that a police officer cannot be made to search someone they don't want to, so this will provide an exemption for all GC people without detriment

Great, thanks for laying out the reason for optimism.

5. Consent cannot create powers Parliament has not conferred
Public authorities may act only within the powers granted by law. A detainee's consent cannot authorise a police officer to act outside statutory limits imposed by Parliament.

This one alone should be enough to overturn this turnips judgement. 😁

The fight goes on but it's worth it, fortunately it's payday so I can contribute to the fighting fund.

Yes!!! Sex Matters have stated on X that they are appealing. Having read the judgement in my view grounds of appeal are -

1. Misinterpretation of PACE 1984
The judge distinguished between compulsory strip searches under PACE and consensual searches at common law. SM could argue that PACE creates a complete statutory code for strip searching detainees. Once Parliament has legislated comprehensively, there is no parallel common law route. If Parliament intended consent to create an exception, it would have said so.
2. Too much weight given to the presumption against abolishing the common law
The judge relied heavily on the principle that Parliament does not remove common law rights unless it does so clearly. SM could argue that where Parliament has enacted a detailed statutory scheme, that scheme is intended to occupy the field.
3. The "same-sex guarantee" is mandatory
If Parliament provides that a detainee is to be searched only by an officer of the same sex, the natural reading is that this is a mandatory requirement, not a default rule that can be waived by consent.
4. The officer is acting as a police officer, not an ordinary citizen
A strip search in custody takes place in a police station, is carried out by a police officer, is authorised because the person is detained, serves policing purposes, and could not lawfully occur outside the statutory framework. The officer is therefore exercising official powers, regardless of consent.
5. Consent cannot create powers Parliament has not conferred
Public authorities may act only within the powers granted by law. A detainee's consent cannot authorise a police officer to act outside statutory limits imposed by Parliament.
6. Insufficient weight given to the purpose of the legislation
The judgment focused on the wording of PACE but arguably gave insufficient weight to why Parliament required same sex strip searches: to provide clear, objective safeguards for detainees and police officers alike.
7. Consent in custody is inherently problematic
Parliament adopted bright-line procedural safeguards because consent given in detention may not always be truly voluntary. The statutory scheme favours objective protections over case by case assessments of whether consent was genuine.

What a baffling decision.

I keep coming across the same names of judges in these High Court cases and I keep thinking how have they not properly understood the issues involved by now?! Why do they keep writing exceptions to the actual law into their legal judgements? Why do they note that an organisation isn't following the law properly but agree that the organisation can keep doing it if it's for Genderist reasons?

I'm baffled (well, I'm not baffled, I think sexism and protecting the status quo has a lot to do with it).

That's very disappointing, what was the judge thinking, there's a law in place that answers this, PACE. Why did the judge decide that the law enforcement agency can ignore the law and replace it with something else? Why is the Judge ignoring the law?

“I can’t understand how people are expected to give true consent while under duress to what essentially amounts to a sexual assault, if not just a physical assault.”

This is so true, how did the bloody judge not come to the same conclusion. FFS

It's a really shocking judgment, isn't it? Rules imposed from above; SM interviewed ordinary Police officers and they don't like it, as well as understanding the implications under PACE.

Why did the brass not think to ask them? And I can't think what the judge was on!

Wow!

The rules are set out in the judgment and they are baroque to say the least. The judge has believed the respondents when they claimed that no-one's career would be adversely affected if they refuse to search opposite-sex suspects.

If the arrest is under PACE then surely the search is. Unless they are saying there's one rule for the police and another for the suspect.

Can this be appealed?

They can't refuse consent to a same-sex search if under arrest, under PACE rules.

So people have to consent to being searched, which means they can refuse to consent?

I may have misunderstood, but it seems trans officers will not be asked to conduct strip searches, except possibly of trans suspects of the same sex (a rare situation!). Apart from anything else, the suspect could maintain that they never consented to be searched by the opposite sex, so any evidence collected in the search will be both non-PACE and arguably inadmissible.

The case seems to relate only to the police forcing officers to strip search opposite-sex suspects, as some sort of sop to the trans community. Why do they even need to do this, when PACE rules surely mean that an arrested trans suspect can legally be forced to undergo a same-sex search without their consent? Do they think the suspect will sue, and, if so, what for?

If I was defending a trans person who was charged based on evidence found in one of these 'consensual' searches (also a rare situation, though), I would give the search officer one hell of a cross-examination, to support the idea that they were acting under duress, making the evidence inadmissible.

Plot for the next John Grisham?

Institutions and their members took the purity test.
Now they impose the purity test on women.