Metropolitan Police Officers found to have committed gross misconduct in the strip search of Child Q

On 3 December 2020, a 15-year-old black schoolgirl was strip searched at her school in Hackney by three police officers. The intimate part of the search was carried out by two female officers. It was suspected that she was in possession of cannabis, although no drugs were ultimately found. The manner in which the child was searched was the subject of considerable publicity.

At a misconduct hearing concluding on 26 June 2025, a panel found a number of allegations proved, with two officers being found to have committed gross misconduct. They were dismissed without notice.  A third officer was found to have committed misconduct and received a final written warning that will remain in place for two years.

The misconduct hearing concluded that the search of Child Q was unnecessary, inappropriate and disproportionate, and that it was humiliating and made her feel degraded. It was carried out without authorisation from a more senior officer, without an appropriate adult present and a proper record was not made afterwards, all in breach of training and police policy.

Of note, the panel did not find that any officer breached professional standards relating to equality and diversity, or honesty and integrity. It also did not find that race was a factor in the officers’ actions.

Strip searches are strictly controlled by Code of Practice C to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In particular:

1. A strip search may only take place if it is considered necessary to remove an article
2. A strip search must be carried out by a police officer of the same sex as the detainee
3. A strip search must be carried out in a private area, so no member of the public can view
4. Whenever a strip search involves exposure of intimate body parts, there must be at least two people present in addition to the detainee, with one of them being an appropriate adult for a juvenile
5. The search should be carried out in a sensitive manner and every effort should be made to try and avoid the detainee embarrassment
6. The search should be conducted as quickly as possible

Strip searches on young people must be carried out with even more caution and care, due to their vulnerability.  Breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or any of its Codes of Practice can result in any evidence obtained through such a breach to be ruled inadmissible in any subsequent criminal proceedings. It can also lead to civil action being taken against the police.

Since the incident with Child Q, there have been a number of reviews of practices and procedures regarding strip searches of juveniles and recommendations made.

A Safeguarding Review by the City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership was carried out and published in March 2022. It concluded that:

1. The decision to strip search Child Q was insufficiently attuned to her best interests or right to privacy
2. Safeguarding a child’s wellbeing should be the main reason for the search. The search should always be proportionate to the concerns felt about the child. Every child has the right to privacy and the law should protect this
3. Racism was likely to have influenced the decision to carry out the strip search of Child Q. Adultification bias (where adults perceive black children as being older than they are) meant that Child Q was not treated at an age-appropriate level
4. Unless there is a risk of serious harm there must be an appropriate adult present during the strip search. If the child doesn’t want an appropriate adult present, this must be discussed with the appropriate adult present
5. Parents/guardians should always be informed if a child is to be strip searched so they can ensure their child is kept well and safe

The Metropolitan Police has also reviewed its procedures and policies regarding strip searches of children, which has been cemented in its Children’s Strategy. In particular, they have issued guidance to every officer on the frontline regarding the correct process and every strip search or more thorough search where intimate parts are exposed requires authorisation by a local officer of inspector rank.

As the Safeguarding Review concluded, the strip search of Child Q should never have happened and there was no reasonable justification for it. It is however interesting that it concluded that the school acted appropriately when concerns were initially raised about Child Q smelling of cannabis. It was once the police arrived that issues started to arise. The Safeguarding Review found that school staff should have done more to challenge to the police, seeking clarity about the actions they intended to take and were not focussed enough on Child Q’s safeguarding needs.

It would appear, therefore, that the issues lay with the police and the way they handled the strip search of Child Q. The officers did not comply with the requirements of Code C or police policy for dealing with such situations. Despite no findings being made relating to alleged breaches of equality, diversity, honesty and integrity, two of the officers were still found to have committed gross misconduct. This demonstrates the seriousness of the breach and the way in which Child Q was treated.  This is in spite of there being admissions from the force that the training provided to officers surrounding strip searches of children was inadequate. Ultimately, it resulted in the officers losing their jobs.

This case highlights the importance of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its Codes of Practice being followed correctly, and the consequences that can flow if police officers do not comply with them. It also makes clear that police officers are individually accountable for complying with regulations and procedures, and cannot rely on the fact of poor and inadequate training.

Previous article

John Yates resigns

Next article

Nick Brett discusses the freezing of £10M in the Premier League’s bank account in ICLG