Investigation into the strip search of Child Q – Metropolitan Police Service, December 2020

Staff at a school requested police assistance because they were concerned that a child smelling of cannabis may be in possession of the drug. School staff had searched the child’s outer clothing and bag and found nothing.

Two officers – one male and one female – arrived and spoke to the school staff and the child. A request was made for a second female officer to attend. The two female officers conducted a search involving the exposure of the pupil’s intimate parts in the school’s medical room. No authorisation for the type of search was given from a senior officer (as required by MPS policy), an appropriate adult was not present during the search (this should have been arranged), and the child’s mother was not contacted. No cannabis was found.

The child’s mother complained to the force about the treatment of her child, including not having an appropriate adult present during the search, and whether the search was a proportionate response to the suspicion of cannabis possession. She also complained that her child was treated differently because of her race.

There were also complaints from the child’s school that appropriate codes of practice were not followed, and that they were misled about what had taken place.

The force began an investigation into the incident, later referring the complaints to us. We decided to independently investigate the circumstances around the strip search of a child, including the grounds for the search, how it was conducted, whether the officers treated the child differently because of her race, sex and age and the officers’ communication with staff during and after the incident.

This was a highly sensitive and complex investigation. Our investigators reviewed a significant number of documents, including thousands of pages of local and national police policies, guidance and training material.

We obtained and reviewed police logs and correspondence about the incident. Recordings of the radio communications made by police officers were gathered and analysed. We secured recordings of the telephone calls to 101, from which transcripts were produced.

Each officer’s previous stop and search records were analysed. We reviewed the number of stop and searches each officer made where the item looked for was found during the search. This number can indicate the effectiveness of an officer’s use of their stop and search powers. Complaint records for the officers were assessed for any patterns of discriminatory behaviour.

A considerable volume of evidence was obtained from the school and analysed. We also considered reports from other investigations and reviews conducted by external agencies.

We obtained statements from the child and mother. Witness statements were taken from school staff and written accounts obtained from officers involved. We conducted misconduct interviews with four officers. 

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

We decided that there should be a misconduct hearing for three of the officers, and a misconduct meeting for the other officer (at the time of publication, the misconduct meeting had not taken place).

The misconduct hearing concluded on 27 June 2025. Two of the officers involved in the original decision to conduct the search were found to have committed gross misconduct. They were found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour relating to duties and responsibilities, authority, respect and courtesy, orders and instructions, and discreditable conduct. They were dismissed without notice.

The third officer was found to have committed misconduct. They received a final written warning that will remain in place for two years.

No officer was found to have breached professional behaviour standards relating to equality and diversity, or honesty and integrity.

The decision made by the panel, as well as our speaking note, submissions on sanction and press statement, are available on our website.

In August 2022, we published recommendations made to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) about safeguarding issues concerning the strip searching of children following a number of referrals. These recommendations were the result of eight complaints about strip searches of children by officers from the MPS, of which this case was one. Details of the recommendations can be found on our news pages: IOPC recommendations to Met over strip searches of children.

In 2023 and 2024 we also issued a number of national learning recommendations and recommended changes to legislation following this investigation and others involving the strip searches of children. More information can be found below.

IOPC calls for review of police strip search powers following Child Q investigation

IOPC makes 10 recommendations to improve child strip search practice