Race and lack of accountability are at the heart of why and how a 15 year-old black girl was strip-searched at school by police after being wrongly suspected of carrying cannabis was handled, a misconduct hearing has been told.
The degree of failures surrounding the “grossly disproportionate search”, allegedly without an appropriate adult present, meant the Metropolitan Police officers did not look to protect a potentially vulnerable child, according to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
Their actions could possibly undermine public trust and confidence in the police, the IOPC warned.
The girl, known as Child Q, was strip searched by officers in Hackney, east London, on December 3 2020.
She arrived for a mock exam smelling of cannabis and was taken to the medical room to be strip-searched while teachers remained outside.
This involved the removal of her clothing including underwear, her bending over and having to expose intimate parts of her body while she was menstruating, the panel heard.
Trainee detective constable (TDC) Kristina Linge, Pc Victoria Wray and Pc Rafal Szmydynski, who were all police constables at the time, all deny gross misconduct over their treatment of the girl.
In closing submissions Elliot Gold, for the IOPC, said discrimination is not the sole ground the panel needs to consider, but added: “The issue of race provides you with the only explanation that is left as to why the officers’ failures were so great and why so much went wrong and the only explanation as to why it all went so badly.”
He told the tribunal panel in south-east London, who could consider sacking the officers if gross misconduct is proved: “The resolution of this case should primarily be forward-facing.
“It is about preventing similar misconduct from recurring in the future, with the consequent damage to trust and confidence in the police, especially within the black community, which these events have caused.”
He added: “This case shows, that members of racial groups need protection from conduct driven by unrecognised or unconscious bias as much as from conscious and deliberate discrimination.”
Mr Gold also noted “there are almost no contemporaneous documents or records of this case – why? That’s because it is the officers who failed to make them.”
No drugs were found by the teachers who searched Child Q’s blazer, shoes and school bag before the school’s safeguarding deputy called police.
They were called amid fears Child Q could have been carrying drugs for someone, being exploited or groomed in the community – which meant it was a safeguarding issue for her and other school pupils.
Mr Gold said “there is a potential evidential conflict as to whether the teachers were insistent there should be a search”.
He added: “There may be criticism of the school calling the police for advice on a safeguarding matter but that shows they did not know what to do, rather than being insistent (on a search) it shows uncertainty.”
Child Q’s mother, who was described as a “supportive” parent, was not present during the strip search and neither was any appropriate adult.
Mr Gold said that “simply being questioned by two police officers, two white police officers for a young black girl may be daunting.”
Mr Gold said: “No adult was present to assist child Q during this time – whether during the conversation with child to decide on the search, when the decision was made to perform a search or when the decision was made to perform a strip search.”
PC Linge told Child Q she would be arrested if she failed to consent to being searched, the panel heard.
Child Q told the two officers who searched her that she was menstruating, but the search continued during which her sanitary pad was exposed, the panel was told.
When no drugs were found after the strip search, Child Q’s hair was also scoured.
When Child Q said she was on her period this was “a new piece of evidence” for the officers and it was a chance for the officers to consider the proportionality of what they were doing, according to the IOPC.
Within days of the strip search, Child Q had gone to her doctor with symptoms of anxiety.
Mr Gold went through a series of doctors’ notes including one which suggested Child Q had the “appearance of symptoms of anxiety consistent with PTSD”.
He added: “No one is likely to suggest that Child Q was anything other than distressed and shaken by a traumatic episode.”
According to the allegations, Pcs Linge and Szmydynski performed a search that exposed the girl’s intimate parts when this was “disproportionate in all the circumstances”.
Pcs Linge and Wray are also accused of performing or allowing the search in a manner which was “unjustified, inappropriate, disproportionate, humiliating and degrading”.
It is alleged that 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, and that the child’s race was an effective cause of this.
Pcs Szmydynski and Linge are further accused of giving a “misleading record” of the search afterwards.
The three officers gave evidence and each said they were not influenced by subconscious bias.
Luke Ponte, for Pc Linge, said they happened to be “three immigrant officers” who were “trying to do their best to their adopted country” as they were seeking to solve a problem.
Outrage over Child Q’s treatment led to protests outside Stoke Newington Police Station.
The panel has heard that training on conducting searches in schools has been described as “insufficient” and officers get no further updates on stop and search after initial training.
Mr Ponte: “These officers must not bear the entire weight of Child Q where there has been wider dysfunction as to how this came about.”
He said there is “impossible complexity and lacking of understanding of police powers”.
Officers are not “super computers” and there is an “air of unreality” in place, if they are to recall all the numerous and complex codes, policies and practices relating to potential incidents.
Mr Ponte added: “The training was a distant memory. There was no refresher training in respect to stop and search.”
He added: “Initial training in the distant past would be difficult to come to mind.”
The IOPC was “not close” to establishing discrimination as a reason behind the way Child Q was treated, according to Mr Ponte.
The hearing continues.
