A police disciplinary panel has dismissed two police officers without notice for gross misconduct following their decision to strip search a 15-year-old female child known as Child Q. The panel found that the search was ‘disproportionate, inappropriate and unnecessary’ and violated police training, standards and the child’s rights.
Details
On 3 December 2020, police officers strip searched a 15-year-old Black female child on school premises, involving the removal of the child’s underwear and exposure of her intimate parts.
Following an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct and a hearing, two police officers, Police Constable Linge and Police Constable Szymydynski, were found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed without notice. The officers were found to have breached several professional standards, including duties, responsibilities, respect, courtesy, and compliance with orders. Key procedural safeguards were ignored, including the absence of an appropriate adult during the search, failure to obtain senior officer approval, and the lack of a search record provided to the child. These failures violated police policy and training, and the panel highlighted the officers’ inability to provide the child with proper protection. The panel concluded that the search was ‘disproportionate, inappropriate and unnecessary’ and made the child feel degraded and humiliated.
The disciplinary panel found that the actions of a third officer, Police Constable Victoria Wray, amounted to misconduct and she received a final written warning.
While the IOPC had argued that race was a factor in the strip search and conduct of the officers, the disciplinary panel found there was insufficient evidence to support this claim. However, the panel noted that the incident was ‘a disastrous and negative interaction’ between the police and a Black teenager.
This case has prompted the IOPC to call for urgent reforms to national guidance, policies, and training related to searches of children, particularly strip searches involving exposure of intimate body parts. IOPC director Steve Noonan emphasised that such searches must only occur when absolutely essential and that individuals, especially children, must be treated with dignity and respect.
Following Child Q’s case, the government proposed amendments to PACE Codes of Practice A and C relating to strip searches. The proposed amendments are fairly limited, but they are designed to strengthen the safeguards for children in these situations. Examples include: placing a more onerous requirement on police to notify parents before a search takes place, highlighting that the child’s dignity, rights and welfare are primary considerations and require that a safeguarding referral take place after every search. The government is currently analysing the consultation responses.
Commentary
The case of Child Q underscores the importance of safeguarding children’s rights during interactions with law enforcement, particularly regarding stop-and-search and strip search powers. It highlights the need for heightened accountability and adherence to procedural safeguards to prevent physical and emotional harm to children. Advocacy plays a critical role in holding authorities accountable for individual misconduct and addressing systemic failures.
While the panel did not establish racial bias in this case, the incident has raised broader concerns about the policing of Black children. It highlights the intersection of race, child protection, and law enforcement, emphasising the need for reforms to ensure equitable treatment and prevent future harm to vulnerable children.