Data on strip searches of under 18’s in 2021

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025725

I note you seek access to the following information:

These questions refer to 2021.

1. How many searches with intimate parts exposed were performed on under-18s?
2. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were looking for drugs?
3. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were looking for weapons?
4. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many found drugs?
5. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many found weapons?
6. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children that found drugs, how many led to arrests?
7. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children that found weapons, how many led to arrests?
8. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were performed on boys?
9. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were performed on girls?
10. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were performed on black children?
11. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were performed on white children?
12. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were performed on Asian children?
13. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were performed by an officer of a different gender than the child?
14. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were performed in the presence of any officers of a different gender than the child?
15. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were performed without a parent, guardian or teacher present?
16. Of searches with intimate parts exposed performed on children, how many were performed at schools?”

On the 2 July 2022, I refused your request on the basis that collating all of the information requested would take a single member of staff in excess of 18 hours (the Freedom of Information Act cost/research limit). Under the duty to advise and assist, I explained:

“the MPS can extract the information sought as parts 1-12 of your request. It is likely that the MPS can address parts 13-15 of your request, albeit this information will, in part, have to be drawn from 2 MPS systems in respect of parts 13-14 of your request for information”

On the 15 July 2022, you wrote to me and stated:

“I am happy to drop question 16. If it still exceeds the cost limit I am willing to drop questions 13-15 but I would appreciate if you would attempt to extract the information even if it has to be presented in a slightly different format than requested.”

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Please find enclosed a spreadsheet in which the located information has been provided. The information requested at parts 13-14 of your request cannot be collated within the 18 hour research/cost limit of the Freedom of Information Act. Parts 13-14 of your request have accordingly been excluded in accordance with your instructions.

CAVEATS
In response to part 15 of your request, the recorded information, as captured in the ‘Appropriate Adult Present’ box, has been provided. It should be noted that the MPS conducted a detailed review of ‘More Thorough where Intimate Parts’ (MTIP) searches conducted persons under the age of 18 years old in connection with the associated report of the Children’s Commissioner. During this review, it was established that:

• 60 MTIP searches were conducted without an appropriate adult.
• The MPS fully recognises the distress to the individual which any type of search where intimate parts are exposed can cause, and does not seek to downplay this. However, 72 searches of the 270 pre arrest MTIP’s recorded for the year 2021 were wrongly recorded as MTIP searches, when they were in fact strip searches in custody after arrest. There will therefore be some double counting, as they will also have been recorded on our custody system and will be counted in both the MTIP data this FOIA data is taken from and custody strip search data.
• There is no information to suggest that any of the 270 recorded MTIP searches took place in a school or an educational setting

CONTEXT
The MPS is progressing at pace work to ensure children subject to intrusive searches are dealt with appropriately and respectfully. We recognise the significant impact such searches can have.

We have already made changes and continue to work hard to balance the policing need for this type of search with the considerable impact it can have on young people.

We have ensured our officers and staff have a refreshed understanding of the policy for conducting a ‘further search’, particularly around the requirement for an appropriate adult to be present. We have also given officers advice around dealing with schools, ensuring that children are treated as children and considering safeguarding for those under 18.

More widely have reviewed the policy for ‘further searches’ for those aged under 18. This is to assure ourselves the policy is appropriate and also that it recognises the fact a child in these circumstances may well be a vulnerable victim of exploitation by others involved in gangs, County Lines and drug dealing.

To ensure we have very clear control over this type of search, we have introduced new measures across the Met. As well as requiring a conversation with a supervisor and the presence of an appropriate adult, an inspector from a local command unit must now give authority before the search taking place to ensure appropriate oversight. A Merlin report must also be submitted, to ensure safeguarding the child is the priority. The Merlin system contains information about a child coming to police attention.