Child Q - strip searched by Met Police - the court case

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev4k0zke24o

I'm sure many will recall this horrific case. Three officers involved are now at a misconduct tribunal and could face dismissal.

'A schoolgirl was "demeaned" and "physically violated" when she was strip-searched at school by police while on her period.
She was wrongly suspected of carrying cannabis, a misconduct hearing for the three Metropolitan Police officers involved has heard.
The girl, who was 15 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.
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.
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.'
...
'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.'

I just can't grasp in my mind the thought processes of the police officers to do that.

the teachers didn't, couldn't, force the met police to do what they did.

The report makes clear that the teacher(s) failed to act in an appropriate way.

They invited the police in.

They weren't invitied in to do verbal investigation.

ie the teachers didn't just enable, but created the situation that implied they were there to do a body search.

I am amazed that more aren't disturbed at the astonishingly negilgent behaviour of the teachers.

Once a child goes through the door into school teachers are "in locus parentis". Would you are a parent invite in the police to strip search your child or a child that might be visiting your home?

And yes the police could have maybe stood back and said the situation as described doesn't warrant a strip search.

But they would never have been there if the school hadn't asked them to come in. The mere fact of inviting them implied a serious situation.

Are all of you happy knowing that your children could be traumatised by teachers failing to do their job properly, and failing in their duty while your child/ren are in school they should be acting with the concern of a parent.

The behaviour of the teachers was far from OK, safeguarding went out of the window; I don't think anyone disputes that.

Yes, probably not.

But the media focus on the police just seems to let educational establishments off the hook.

Obviously the statistic of strip searchs of childreb being dispropotionately children from Black communities, shows they are clearly not acting properly.

But the school in inviting the police in, when the pupil concerned was Black, was effectively asking this to happen.

I suppose I am saying, where are the news paper reports about how children aren't safe in schools when teachers can abuse their positions.

Its like blaming a dog that an owner has let off it lead, when the owner knows the dog is at best aggressive and at worse dangerous.

Why did the teachers call the police? They must've surely given some reason why they thought she had drugs on her.

it's not illegal here. But it has always been openly smoked in Frankfurt. And so, having lived there for a while, whenever i smell it, it is "the smell of Frankfurt" and everyone knows what I'm talking about.

Are all of you happy knowing that your children could be traumatised by teachers failing to do their job properly, and failing in their duty while your child/ren are in school they should be acting with the concern of a parent.

but the teachers aren't on trial here (have they been? will they be?)

This is just detracting from the discussion of yet again (see the old fella with the butter knife) of the Police totally failing to act in a decent, let alone professional way, when confronted with a relatively easy situatino.

Police totally failing to act in a decent, let alone professional way, when confronted with a relatively easy situatino.

We might think that, but these weren't rogue police. They were acting in line with existing police practice. Not saying it is right.

But the fact they do this, and there has been publicity in the media about the police stripping searching children, and in the majority children from Black communities, just illustrates how inappropriate it was to call the police.

Because a teacher thought they "smelt" canabis. The child's bag etc., was search and nothing found.

What ever prompted them to go any further (leaving aside the mock exam situation).

On what grounds would any sane person call in the police? Even if you weren't aware of their reputation for a racist approach, but in proportion to an in school event.

She wasn't seen dealing in the corridor. She may have sat on a bus (which I have done) and ended up inhaling and then smelling of weed.

Seriously.

What standard of intelligence is expected of teachers now?

No wonder the Head sneaked away claiming ill health.

Retrospectively telling the police who acted in line with (yes appalling) existing practice is in fact the distraction.

It is making it look like they went rogue.

Why aren't the higher up police on trial for allowing their juniors to think this is what is expected of them

Pointless scapegoating, which means institutions wont change.

So the head teacher sneaks away, and the front line police are scapegoated to safe the higher up.

What a really, really tokenistic gesture so that everyone who just enjoys the spectacle can not bother to think any further than that.

They were acting in line with existing police practice.

No, they weren't. That's why there's a misconduct hearing. There were protocols that should have been followed, but weren't.

'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.'

What part of that do you not understand IWantToRetire?

Retrospectively telling the police who acted in line with (yes appalling) existing practice is in fact the distraction.

They did not not act in line with correct procedure hence the misconduct hearing.

It is making it look like they went rogue.

It looks like they did very much go rogue. Failure to document the incident in their Pocket Books or on the relevant forms/system afterwards adds credence to that and the fact they knew they were not acting in accordance with procedure.

Why aren't the higher up police on trial for allowing their juniors to think this is what is expected of them

Because that was not what was expected of the juniors.

Pointless scapegoating, which means institutions wont change.

No.

So the head teacher sneaks away, and the front line police are scapegoated to safe the higher up.

The front line police carried out the search against all the established procedure and protocols.

They did not have to conduct the search at all, the school/teachers could not force them to do so. The could and should have assessed the situation differently and acted differently, they abused their power.

What a really, really tokenistic gesture so that everyone who just enjoys the spectacle can not bother to think any further than that.

Hopefully they will lose their jobs then they won't be able to do it again.

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.

Now why would that be IWantToRetire if they acted correctly?

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".

Says it all. These Officers are not being used as handy scapegoats, they abused their power and subjected a child to a horrific, invasive procedure.

Still baffled about why the school called the police. Surely every teacher knows that children will smell of cannabis if they live with someone who smokes weed. Toddlers in playgroups sometimes smell of weed; so do primary school children. It's just not good enough as grounds for suspicion now that skunk smells so strong and lingers on children's clothing and in their hair. A horrible business.

They alleged that they smelled weed smoke on her so ofcourse that ment she had weed on her🤨, hence the police were called in to search her, though why they felt it needed an intimate strip search instead of an ordinary search I have no idea

There's a complete difference unfortunately between "protocols" that upper management have put in place, and daily police practice which is linked to how local teams work. (Canteen culture.)

I am not saying this is right.

Nor that they shouldn't be prosecuted.

But if they had really cared the legal action would have been done earlier.

I presume this is a political gesture agreed by senior police, to make out it is just a rogue police incident.

Not the fact that most front line police answer to each other.

If these police are being prosecuted I would hope that all the cases listed in the report whose link i posted earlier have also been prosecuted.

I bet they weren't.

This is just performative politics because this one case is high profile. Other victims of this have not been given this same level of "concern".

Not have there been any statements that police management has carried out a full retraining and issued guidelines to ensure it doesn't happen again.

This is why in the UK the same problems and issues happen over and over again.

Exactly. If you call in a disproporationate backup to your decision to pass what is your responsibility to someone else, then you are also responsible.

For heavens sake.

Nobody is saying they acted appropriately. But what they did has been done by many other police AND HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A PROBLEM.

Therefore the teachers is calling in the police to a child from the Black community for a not even evidenced crime, were totally failing in their role as acting as the parent.

Would you have called in the police for what at the worst might have been personal use?

But fine, get all pompous about notes, and accepted procedure.

But the fact that a school in a borough like Hackney which is nearly 50% BME communities, that a teacher called in the police when there are regular demostrations outside the one open police station shows that the teaching staff in that school are clearly not engaged nor respecting the community they are living.

But if it makes you happy to let the authorities offer up the few bad apples excuse, fine.

But prosecuting a couple of police doesn't do anything to repair the damage caused by the schools failure.

If you read the extracts from the report I bother to copy and post, you will see that it was identified that the problem was that the teacher(s) did not, which they should have done, stop the police from doing a strip search. Which any of you as a parent would have done.

The police are a law unto themselves and have been for a long time.

A child could smell of cannabis for many reasons. I picked up a neighbour's grand daughter once and her coat smelled of it. I knew the neighbour smoked but only after the grandchildren were in bed asleep.

It turned out the children's coats were hung in the hall next to the room the grandma smoked in.

Yes, the teachers have a lot to answer for. What on earth are their safeguarding procedures?
All because a member of staff walking past her ‘thought’ she smelt of cannabis! Wasn’t she in an exam? The way this all escalated was absolutely insane.

I missed that previously. Thanks.

I still would say that teachers are highly likely to defer to Police in this situation. Police are the ones expected to know and uphold the law.

Nobody is saying they acted appropriately. But what they did has been done by many other police AND HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A PROBLEM.

AND NOW IT IS BEING ADDRESSED. Arguing that others have done it and got away with it previously is no defence.

But if it makes you happy to let the authorities offer up the few bad apples excuse, fine.

They are not offering up a few bad apples they are quite rightly disciplining the Police Officers for their Gross Misconduct in this case. Would you rather they didn't?

But prosecuting a couple of police doesn't do anything to repair the damage caused by the schools failure.

The failure of the school is a separate issue to the actions of the Police Officers, the Police Officers DID NOT HAVE TO DO THE INTIMATE SEARCH, the school could not force them to do so, they could and should have behaved differently.

Speaking generally, rather than specifically to this case, there's a massive difference between the smell of weed being smoked in the home on clothes and the smell of either having just skinned up outside and being stoned or carrying.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o

Gross misconduct

But even if the school had called the police, the police are still responsible for carrying out their jobs legally.

this case is racist too. The director general says that the officers treated child Q as older than she was and as if she was involved in criminality.

its all shocking. The promoted officer should not have been promoted during an investigation. They should all be sacked.

'The panel found the action by Trainee Det Con Linge and PC Szmdynski amounted to gross misconduct.
Misconduct was proven in the action taken by PC Wray.
During the hearing, the search was described as unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate humiliating and degrading.
Panel chair Cdr Jason Prins said the search "was improper and conducted without an appropriate adult".
He added that Child Q's position as a "vulnerable or a potentially exploited child was not adequately considered".'

So presumably criminal charges now follow ?