Police actions examined after child stopped and searched – Metropolitan Police Service, August 2023

Three police officers were tasked with carrying out mobile patrols in London boroughs. Their remit was to identify and prevent crime before it happened.

The officers were working in an area known for high levels of knife possession. They decided to stop a child walking on the pavement to search them for weapons. The officers were wearing plain clothes and were in an unmarked police vehicle.

Officers spoke to the child, who pulled away from them. The officers used force to stop the child moving away, grabbing their arm and placing them in handcuffs. They searched the child but did not find any weapons or prohibited items, and the child was allowed to leave.

On the same day, the child’s mother contacted the police to complain about the stop and search of their child. No record of the search was found on police computer systems, and no paperwork had been given to the child about the search.

The police were able to identify the officers involved using the geolocation function on body worn video. The officers uploaded their paperwork seven days after the stop and search when a senior officer requested it. 

The child’s mother was allowed to view the officers’ body worn video footage which captured the stop and search, and she decided to make a formal complaint about the officers’ actions. We received a complaint referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the actions of MPS officers in relation to the stop and search of the child.

We examined whether the officers’ decision to stop and search the child was fair and adequately explained, whether their use of force was justified, reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, and whether appropriate records were completed in the required time frame.

We also considered whether officers complied with the law, policy and guidance in relation to the stop and search of a child, and whether officers treated the child differently because of their age and/or race.

Our investigators interviewed the three police officers involved in the stop and search and obtained an account from the child about the incident. We took statements from relevant witnesses and reviewed relevant legislation, as well as local and national policies and guidance. We reviewed the officers’ body worn video footage.

We concluded there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence, but two officers had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that these officers had a case to answer for misconduct. We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the officers and that they should take the form of a misconduct meeting.

We found that these officers did not communicate or build rapport with the child, failing to consider tactical communications or other options before using handcuffs. We also found evidence that the officers may not have had the legal powers to use force and failed to follow policy with regards to paperwork.

We did not find any evidence that any of the officers treated the child differently because of their age and/or race.

The misconduct meeting concluded in March 2025, but misconduct was not proven. The officers did not breach the police standards of professional behaviour but were required to undertake the reflective practice review process (RPRP). This process allows officers to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better.

We recommended that the third officer also undertake the RPRP at the end of our investigation. Officers were asked to reflect on the importance of submitting accurate and timely paperwork, and communication styles.

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

We did not identify any organisational learning in this case.