Black schoolgirl, 15, was 'physically violated' by Met Police officers who strip-searched her on suspicion of carrying cannabis while on her period, misconduct hearing is told

Daily Mail​

03-06-2025

A black schoolgirl was 'physically violated' by three Met Police officers who strip-searched her after wrongly suspecting she was carrying cannabis, a misconduct hearing was told.
The 15-year-old girl, known as Child Q, had arrived at the school in Hackney, East London, for a mock exam when she was taken to the medical room to be strip-searched while teachers remained outside.
The hearing was told the search involved having to undress herself, including her underwear, leading to the 'exposure of her intimate parts'.
This is despite the schoolgirl telling officers she was menstruating, the hearing was told.
Her bag and blazer were also searched, and after this did not lead to any drugs being found, she then had her hair combed, revealing no signs of cannabis.
Breaches of the Met's standards of professional behaviour amount to gross misconduct and can lead to dismissal.
Elliot Gold, representing the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is bringing the case, said the search formed part of a 'no stone unturned' approach, despite it being an incident that, he argued, 'could never have justified such intrusion, namely the possible discovery of a small amount of cannabis'.
Trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge, PC Victoria Wray and PC Rafal Szmydynski all deny gross misconduct over their treatment of the girl.
All three officers were PCs at the time of the search, which caused outrage over Child Q's treatment and led to protests outside Stoke Newington Police Station.
Today, Mr Gold told the hearing the point where Child Q said she was on her period should have been the 'opportunity' for the 'officers to reconsider the necessity and proportionality of the search' but they instead told her 'we are all women here' and thereby treated Child Q as an adult rather than a child'.
The incident happened in December 2020 when the school's safeguarding deputy alerted police, saying that Child Q smelled of cannabis, could potentially be bringing drugs into the school, and she might be at risk of exploitation in the community.
The police went to the school after Child Q's teachers raised concerns about her smelling of cannabis that morning, just a few weeks after a similar incident.
PCs Linge and Szmydynski carried out a search that exposed the girl's intimate areas, despite the act being described as 'disproportionate in all the circumstances,' according to the allegations.
PCs Linge and Wray are also accused of carrying out, or allowing, the search in a manner seen as 'unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate, humiliating and degrading.'
All of this happened without authorisation, without an appropriate adult and no adequate concern being given to Child Q's age, sex, or the need to treat her as a child, it is also alleged.
PCs Szmydynski and Linge are also accused of giving a misleading account of the incident afterwards.
No formal record of the search was made at the time, neither in the officers' pocket notebooks nor on the standard stop-and-search form, which would typically be required for any street-level stop and search.
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'.
Mr Gold said that any suggestion by the officers that the safeguarding deputy was acting as the appropriate adult, even though she was not present during the search, should be rejected.
He said: 'It was, or should have been, obvious to these officers that the safeguarding deputy could not act as the appropriate adult.
'On the officers' own accounts, the safeguarding deputy was the person who had summoned the police to the school, was Child Q's "accuser", was adamant that the officers would find cannabis on Child Q's person and, so, was not a person who could reasonably be expected to challenge the police in their actions.'
Black people were more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, and discrimination is a 'contributing factor' in stop and search, it was suggested.
Mr Gold also told the panel 'black schoolchildren are more likely to be treated as older and less vulnerable or in need of protection and support than their white peers'.
He said: 'She was treated as being older than she was, more likely to be involved in criminality, and subjected to a more intrusive search, than she would have been had she been a white schoolgirl in the same situation, arriving at school, smelling of cannabis.'
Mr Gold said that sacking the officers would be 'justified' if the allegations are proved, adding: 'Their actions and omissions have resulted in Child Q suffering harm to her mental health and feeling physically violated.
'They have caused Child Q and her mother to feel demeaned and disrespected.
'They have brought discredit on the Metropolitan Police and upset race-relations yet further between the police and minority communities.'
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.
When no drugs were found after the strip search, Child Q's hair was also scoured.
He told the panel: 'Child Q is black. It is the director general's case that this kind of gross overreaction by the police - to strip search a school pupil on suspicion of something relatively minor, possession of cannabis - would not have happened to a white pupil and is, regrettably, explained by Child Q's race, whether or not the officers were consciously aware of this at the time.'