On the afternoon of 16 November 2016, my client Tom travelled to London Bridge underground station so as to meet up with his girlfriend. He travelled there with a male friend. Upon arrival, Tom and his friend split up so as to locate Tom’s girlfriend in the busy station concourse.
At the time, Tom was 17 years old.
Whilst he was walking through the station, Tom was stopped by PC Carter of the Metropolitan Police and advised he was to be searched.
PC Carter then grabbed Tom’s arm with one hand and Tom’s wrist with the other. Tom remonstrated and said “You don’t need to hold my arm. I will comply; you don’t need to hold my arm. I have a bad arm, I’ve hurt it.” (He was suffering with muscular soreness in both arms from extensive physical training).
The conversation between Tom and PC Carter (captured on the Officer’s Body Worn Video) continued as follows:
PC Carter – “We’re not holding it tightly, we don’t have to put you in cuffs, but we might do.”
Tom – “For what?”
PC Carter – “All I’m asking you to do is to walk over to the wall with me.”
PC Carter then sought to handcuff Tom to the rear and the conversation then continued as follows:
Tom – “I’m going over, you don’t need to do that. Why are you putting me in cuffs?”
PC Carter – “Coz you are being reluctant and evasive.”
The handcuffs were applied very tightly and Tom complained:
Tom – “I’m saying that I’m going to meet my girlfriend ….. You don’t need to do it that tight.”
PC Carter – “You are not going to dictate what we can and can’t do.”
Tom – “You don’t need to do it that tight.”
PC Carter informed Tom that he had seen him come around the corner and stop in his tracks and that had aroused the Officer’s suspicions and that a passive drugs dog had then indicated that Tom might have drugs on him.
PC Carter then carried out a ‘pat down’ search of Tom, both front and rear, during which he touched Tom’ genitals (though his clothing) several times. PC Carter asked if Tom had any ID on him. Tom said his wallet was in his right pocket. A female Officer then removed Tom’s wallet, and Tom gave his full name, date of birth and confirmed that his Oyster card was in his wallet.
Tom complained that the handcuffs were cutting off the blood circulation to his hands and he could not longer feel his fingers. PC Carter dismissed this complaint.
Tom’s friend then approached; Tom asked his friend to confirm that he had indeed attended the station so as to meet his girlfriend, which his friend did.
Tom was confused and shocked by what was happening to him, and understandably embarrassed as members of the public were staring at him.
PC Carter advised Tom that he was not satisfied and that Tom would now be taken for a further search.
PC Carter and four other Officers then escorted Tom out of the station. Tom again complained that his hand were going numb.
Tom was taken to a toilet in the nearby British Transport Police Station by three male Officers, including PC Carter. At this time, PC Carter finally removed the handcuffs from Tom and told him to remove his upper clothing items one by one. He was then allowed to put his t-shirt back on and told to remove his lower clothing items again, one by one. Having done so, he was told to lift his penis up and then his testicles. He was then told to spread his legs and bend forwards. This type of ‘strip search’ is what is known in Police jargon as MTIP (More Thorough Stop and Search, Intimate Parts Exposed).
Tom felt extremely embarrassed, humiliated and degraded. He was conscious that PC Carter was wearing a plastic glove. Tom was immediately anxious as to the extent of PC Carter’s search and said “You’re not putting your finger up my bum.” Fortunately, it did not go that far.
Tom was then allowed to re-dress and was released from the Police Station shortly afterwards. The search was, of course, entirely negative.
Tom’s mother was understandably outraged with what had happened to her son, and subsequently filed a complaint about events. By report dated 25 September 2020, the Met Professional Standards Department found that PC Carter had:
- Failed to identify himself or provide details of his station or unit to inform Tom that he was entitled to a copy of the search record at the conclusion of the search.
- Carried out a strip search of Tom without an appropriate adult being present (an essential prerequisite given that Tom was only 17 years old).
- Carried out a strip search of Tom in the presence of two other Officers (no more than two people should be present).
- Failed to secure authority from a Senior Officer (minimum rank of Sergeant) to carry out the strip search.
- Failed to record any justification for the search in an Evidence/Action Book or in his personal issue pocket book.
Notwithstanding all of the identified breaches, the tone of the Complaint report was typically unapologetic, and if anything unsympathetic and hostile towards Tom – excusing the breaches as, in effect, momentary lapses, “accidental oversights” or understandable mistakes on the part of PC Carter. The author of the report was at pains to repeatedly praise PC Carter as “an experienced officer with sound knowledge and capable Policing skills” and at the same time blame Tom for distracting this ‘highly experienced’ officer and making him forget to comply with the law – “My investigation suggests that Tom is partially responsible for the outcome” suggesting without foundation that Tom was unduly “hostile” and dishonest in his dealings with the officer.
I brought a claim on behalf of Tom and following the institution of court proceedings, his claim was settled for £10,000 damage plus a letter of apology.
All named changed.
Also read: Compensation Claim for teenager wrongly strip-searched for drugs
