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

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/challenging-the-shadow-strip-searching-regime/

I find this unbelievable. SM have - as usual - set out the case so clearly. I can’t imagine a second court would uphold this, but it’s so frustrating that both sides have to put time and money into something so blatantly wrong. And disgusting that police chiefs are yet again hiding their misogyny in plain sight.

Fucking hell what was that judge and lawyers for the police thinking

That sounds fucking believable!

So whilst they conduct the search, they're not under the PACE regulations, they're acting in an entirely private, mutually consensual capacity?

So can they start groping each other? Snog, have sex??

What's Private about conducting a police generated search based on evidence that the person might be criminal?

it's so bloody incoherent I'm speechless.

obviously Sex Matters are going to take it to the next level. But fuck me, women should not be having to work this hard to stop men abusing them

And when, cos it will be when, a female officer has to search a man, and he starts moaning, winking, panting, does she have any recourse, or is she fucked because she said yes to it??

Unbelievable!! The assertion that they could operate outside of PACE was absolutely ludicrous. I cannot believe a judge accepted that!! What other regulations are they able to just ignore?

I'm just amazed by the statistical improbability.
How many of the population are TIM?
How many PCs are TIM?
How many women arrested need a strip search?
How many TIMs are present when a woman needs a strip search?
How many situations where women needing a strip search exist where a real WPC can't do it instead?
This is all tending to 0.01% at most.
Yet here we are, males end up controlling that 0.01%.

How would it work in practice? Does the TWPC take you out for a drink first?

There was a police officer on here a while back she said sometimes there was only one female police officer around. And searches happen a lot more than one might think. In which case, she will absolutely be pressured to do it.

It was in response to yeah but they can say no. She's said in reality, that's very, very difficult.

I just can't get my head around a specific situation of extreme vulnerability, a strip search, intimate medical examination for rape, smear test...in two of these three cases, one can expect a female to perform it or a woman can easily ask for a female, but in one case, the pressure is on not to dissent from a TIM officer.
What makes it even more exasperating is that almost every situation where multiple officers attend a crime scene (pretty much every case), there are female officers present. Even if there is a TIM on the team attending, why would the TIM be appointed to perform the strip search? Why wouldn't the female officers naturally be chosen?

It's the person being searched who can request opposite sex, so aTiM asking for a woman pc. Maybe they could keep a TiM on staff for just this scenario? Woman searches woman and they're both male, solved.

Ruling is batshit.

Might have to double my monthly SM subscription. Infuriating.

Yes, I've always thought that the person would have a get out of jail or free clause just by identifying as the sex to avoid the situation.

But of course, it doesn't work like that. It's women who will get pressurised, whether they are doing the searching, or being searched.

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

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?

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

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

Can this be appealed?

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.

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.

Wow!

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!

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

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).

What a baffling decision.

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.