Black schoolgirl, 15, ‘demeaned and physically violated' by police strip search

Powys County Times

03-06-2025

A black schoolgirl was 'demeaned' and felt 'physically violated' when she was strip searched at school by police while on her period after being wrongly suspected of carrying cannabis, a misconduct hearing for the three Metropolitan Police officers involved has heard.
The girl, who was 15 years old 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.
Trainee Detective Constable 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 3 December 2020.
Outrage over Child Q's treatment led to protests outside Stoke Newington Police Station after a safeguarding review revealed she had arrived at school for a mock exam and was taken to the medical room to be strip searched while teachers remained outside.
On Tuesday Elliot Gold, for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) which is bringing the case, said: 'The search involved the removal of Child Q's clothing including her underwear, her bending over and, thus, the exposure of her intimate parts including, necessarily on the (IOPC) director general's case, her vagina and anus.
'Child Q was menstruating at the time, as she told the two officers who searched her, but they nevertheless proceeded with the search. It is not disputed that Child Q's sanitary pad was thereby exposed.
'The object was to search for cannabis. No cannabis was found.'
The point where Child Q said she was on her period was 'an obvious opportunity for the two officers to reconsider the necessity and proportionality of the search' but they instead told her 'we are all women here', or said that they were all 'females', and thereby treated Child Q as an adult rather than a child', Mr Gold said.
Pcs Linge and Szmydynski performed a search that exposed the girl's intimate parts when this was 'disproportionate in all the circumstances', according to the allegations.
Pcs Linge and Wray also performed or allowed the search in a manner which was 'unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate, humiliating and degrading'.
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.
It is also claimed that Pcs Szmydynski and Linge both gave a misleading record of the search afterwards.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Both times her bags and blazer was searched and nothing was found.
On this occasion, in December 2020 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.
A 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, according to Mr Gold.
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.'
When no drugs were found after the strip search, Child Q's hair was also scoured.
Mr Gold said this was part of a 'no stone unturned' approach and something that 'could never have justified such intrusion, namely the possible discovery of a small amount of cannabis'.
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.'
Scotland Yard has previously apologised over the incident.