Stop and searches conducted on children (up to the age of 18) since 2018
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.031839
I note you seek access to the following information:
In order for us to take forward our statutory responsibilities, we request the following information to enable us to consider what, if any, regulatory steps to take in respect of the above concerns:
1. Please provide statistics for the number of stop and searches conducted on children (up to the age of 18) since 2018, disaggregated by sex, age, officer observed ethnicity, London borough, and by the legislative power under which the search was conducted.
2. Please provide statistics for the number of strip searches of children (specifically, MTIP stop and search data) since 2018, disaggregated as above. *
3. Please explain any racial disparities in the data provided for questions 1 and 2, providing evidence justifying such disparity and in reference to Sir Mark Rowley’s comments referenced above.
4. Please explain how the Met Police ensures that young men who are Black are not racially profiled during strip-searches (MTIP), including any policy, practice, guidance, monitoring, data, risk analysis etc., including those that were in place both before and after June 2022 when changes took place.**
5. Please inform us if further changes are proposed, including what those change are, when they will be implemented and who is accountable for them.
6. Please explain how the Met Police’s obligations under the PSED influenced any changes made or any proposed future changes in respect to strip searches of children, providing any documents supporting the equality analysis.
7. Please explain how you are monitoring any changes implemented since June 2022, or earlier if relevant, to ensure positive and lasting impact and change.
8. The Met Police admitted to the BBC on 22 May 2023 that it misreported the number of intimate searches that were carried out on children due to a “data transmission error”. Please set out the Met Police’s process for collecting and reporting data in respect of strip searching children, including the quality assurance and risk escalation processes in place, and the changes made to mitigate future “transmission errors”.
9. Please confirm timescales for your response to the IOPC report about the five cases they have investigated.
* We note that the Met Police told the Children’s Commissioner that a manual review of 2021 cases revealed serious data errors in the cases for 2021. Due to these errors they data for 2021 as removed from the analysis (page 10 of August 2022 report). We further note that the Met Police have provided data for the years 2018-2020 to the Children’s Commission that informed her report on the Met Police. However, the Commission kindly request the raw data in order that they can conduct their own analysis if necessary.
** Our request for information from June 2022 is informed by the letter written by the then Director General of the IOPC, Michael Lockwood, to the acting Commissioner of the Met Police date 26 July 2022. We note that in the letter refers to the Met Police “recently” making changes to stop and search policy relating to searches exposing intimate parts (i.e., strip searches).
Decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement,
Section 38(1) - Health and Safety,
Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) - Personal information
Reason for decision
Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for information can be answered.
The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.
The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.
To disclose the number of Stop and Searches and More Thorough Searches Where Intimate Parts (MTIP) are Exposed made by Metropolitan Police Officers and broken down by the individual’s age as requested above and where the total number of these searches is too low could cause an individual to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation. This cannot be allowed. Consideration must also be given to the mental state of the individual/victim/families if identified.
Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement - Disclosure of the number of Stop and Searches and More Thorough Searches Where Intimate Parts (MTIP) are Exposed made by Metropolitan Police Officers and broken down by the individual’s age as requested above and where the total number of these searches is too low risks the identity of the victim/suspect being revealed. This may cause an investigation to collapse as the individual could be targeted, or undermine the confidence in the police.
Disclosure of the information requested could identify persons captured by the scope of this request. Individuals could analyse the information (and along with local knowledge) identify the individual concerned. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and also prejudice the MPS's ability to fairly conduct an investigation.
Section 38(1) - Health and Safety - of the Act provides an exemption from the disclosure of information which would, or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of any individual.
Disclosure of the number of Stop and Searches and More Thorough Searches Where Intimate Parts (MTIP) are Exposed made by Metropolitan Police Officers and broken down by the individual’s age as requested above and where the total number of these searches is too low could jeopardise the mental state and safety of the individual. This will not be in the public interest. If this information was to fall into the hands of others involved/aware the information can be used to undermine the security and safety of the wider community and/or the person concerned.
Disclosure of the number of Stop and Searches and More Thorough Searches Where Intimate Parts (MTIP) are Exposed made by Metropolitan Police Officers and broken down by the individual’s age as requested above and where the total number of these searches is too low will provide any person with knowledge of the offence, incident and where it took place, to use the information disclosed to work out who the individual may be and cause that person (or others) much distress and harm. This could compromise the mental health of the person involved or/and the ongoing or any other future investigation.
The harm identified above, is reduced by not disclosing low value statistics and by grouping ages together, to ensure the identity of subjects captured by this request is not revealed.
It is imperative that the safety and identity of those captured by this request, or the compromising of the investigation was not a factor, when trying to be transparent in disclosing as much information as possible. The MPS has a duty of care to the communities served. In view of the arguments provided above, it is our opinion, that disclosure in full of the number of Stop and Searches and More Thorough Searches Where Intimate Parts (MTIP) are Exposed made by Metropolitan Police Officers and broken down by the individual’s age as requested above and where the total number of these searches is too low cannot be permitted.
To disclose the number of Stop and Searches and More Thorough Searches Where Intimate Parts (MTIP) are Exposed made by Metropolitan Police Officers and broken down by the individual’s age as requested above and where the total number of these searches is too low could cause an individual to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation. This cannot be allowed. Consideration must also be given to the mental state of the individual/victim/families if identified.
The MPS response for the rest of this request permits the disclosure of statistical information which is not likely to lead to the identification of individuals.
Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) - Personal information - Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.
The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption.
The information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be Personal Data
Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.
In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3A, 3B and 4A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as amended by Schedule 19 of the Data Protection Act 2018, specifically Section 58 of that schedule).
The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.
There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34.
In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which states that the processing (in this case the disclosure) of the data must be both lawful and fair.
It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 31, 38 & 40 to the same pieces of information.
Disclosure
Q1 - Please provide statistics for the number of stop and searches conducted on children (up to the age of 18) since 2018, disaggregated by sex, age, officer observed ethnicity, London borough, and by the legislative power under which the search was conducted.
Please see spreadsheet below
Q2 - Please provide statistics .for the number of strip searches of children (specifically, MTIP stop and search data) since 2018, disaggregated as above. *
Please see spreadsheet below
Q3 - Please explain any racial disparities in the data provided for questions 1 and 2, providing evidence justifying such disparity and in reference to Sir Mark Rowley’s comments referenced above.
Racial disparity is complex: disproportionality estimates typically fail to clarify the impact of wider societal factors (e.g. poverty, education, employment) in relation to potential Met-specific factors (e.g. bias in officer decision-making or wider systemic factors). Without a clear indication of the role of Met-specific factors, it is challenging to explain disparities, understand where to target our efforts or evaluate our impact.
For this reason, the Met is delivering a data-driven programme of work aimed at assessing, understanding, and – where appropriate - tackling disproportionality at key touchpoints in police activity, including the Met’s use of stop and search. We are also strengthening and developing assurance processes and structures that will help us to identify and address problematic behaviours that could reflect disproportionality at an individual/systemic level. Over the last year however, we have made a number of improvements to the way we approach stop and search and, in particular, More Thorough searches where Intimate Parts are exposed (MTIPs).
MTIPs formed 1.3% of all searches in 2022 (down to 0.8% for searches this year to 31 July), and Child MTIPs formed 0.08% in 2022 (down to 0.05% for searches this year to 31 July). Nevertheless, we recognise that it is the most intrusive tactic involved in stop and search and of concern to our communities. Since August 2022, we have expanded the quantity of MTIP data published externally, including age, ethnicity, gender, borough and juvenile Appropriate Adult present.
We recognise the impact that searches of this nature have on children, however we are very aware that children can be exploited and become involved in violent crime both as perpetrators and victims. It is for this reason that we are seeking to balance the necessity for such searches against the impact it will have on each child. This has resulted in a considerable reduction in the number of child MTIP searches being carried out.
Q4 - Please explain how the Met Police ensures that young men who are Black are not racially profiled during strip-searches (MTIP), including any policy, practice, guidance, monitoring, data, risk analysis etc., including those that were in place both before and after June 2022 when changes took place.**
The necessity to utilise stop and search fairly and effectively is incorporated into all elements of the Met’s stop and search policy, including MTIPs. The opening paragraph of the 2023 policy refresh states, “Every search must be conducted fairly and effectively, pass the test of reasonableness and have consideration to the impact a stop and search encounter can have, especially on those under 18 or vulnerable adults”. This originates from the PACE Codes of Practice, which, in Code A, state in 2.2B, ‘Personal factors can never support reasonable grounds for suspicion’ and ‘Generalisations or stereotypical images that certain groups or categories of people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity.’
This is inculcated in the ‘Reasonable Grounds’ section of the 2023 stop & search policy, as well as its predecessor which existed prior to 2022. The newest policy, which was published on 16/08/23 is available to all officers on the intranet and its publication was signposted by an Operational Notice, as well as being shared with all 15 Basic Command Unit and frontline Pan London Command stop and search strategic leads. Furthermore, this is also covered in the Met’s Bitesize video guidance.
The Bitesize videos are eight short instructional videos across all elements of stop and search, as a quick, effective and accessible aide memoire to stop and search powers and responsibilities. When the new MTIP policy was introduced in 2022, links to the policy toolkit and the Bitesize video guidance were included on the intranet landing pages and operational notices
For policy and guidance, see Further Word document attachments;
1) Published Policy excerpts relating to MTIPS prior to Child Q review policy change
2) Published Policy excerpts relating to MTIPS post Child Q review policy change 25-05-22
Please note other MTIP guidance exists for officers around MTIPs including but not limited to the bespoke Bitesize video, which was reviewed and updated along with the new policy on 25/05/2022, a How to authorise guide and the MTIP 12 checklist.
The Met has a Central Stop & Search Team that oversees guidance, policy and training on all aspects of stop and search. The Team facilitates a weekly governance meeting, where senior representatives from all of the Basic Command Units (BCUs) as well as the central Taskforce, Roads & Traffic Policing Command (RTPC) and the Violent Crime Task Force (VCTF) convene to discuss weekly data, share best practice and general updates. The weekly meeting is augmented by an enhanced Monthly Steering Group. This is chaired by DAC Adelekan and attended by senior leadership representatives for the aforementioned BCU/OCUs.
The Central Stop & Search team quality assures every MTIP upon a child, providing bespoke feedback to the officers, supervisors, authorising Inspectors and command SPOCs involved. The Team also conducts dip sampling on a range of searches, checking for reasonable grounds, use of force, Body Worn Video (BWV) compliance and supervision. Bespoke feedback is provided to the searching officer and line manager for reflective learning and the BCU SLT S&S lead for emerging thematic issues.
Q5 - Please inform us if further changes are proposed, including what those change are, when they will be implemented and who is accountable for them.
A juvenile MTIP pilot commenced in August 2023, running on two BCUs simultaneously. Following post-Child Q changes to MTIP policy in May 2022, the Met continues to seek ways to respond to community feedback and improve policy and practice. The main change in MTIP policy in 2022 was the rise in authority and supervision level from Sergeant to Local BCU Inspector. However, the rationale for the Inspector’s authority is currently not formally recorded anywhere. Through both internal and external consultation, we have also received feedback on the timeliness and communication methods of the rationale for the MTIP. The aim of the pilot is to address this feedback by creating a new set of parameters when a juvenile MTIP occurs, namely:
• Grounds are recorded before the search occurs
• The authorising Inspector records their rationale for authorising the search before it occurs
• Where operationally possible, the authorising Inspector is to make contact with the subject and the appropriate adult and inform them of the grounds verbally
• New appropriate adult guidance to be provided.
Furthermore, new guidance was created in summer 2023, aimed at improving officers’ knowledge of the differences between s54 PACE strip searches (after arrest) and MTIP searches. This is in the form of a poster campaign for custody suites and police station and is designed to eradicate recording errors.
Q6 - Please explain how the Met Police’s obligations under the PSED influenced any changes made or any proposed future changes in respect to strip searches of children, providing any documents supporting the equality analysis.
The Met’s obligations under PSED run through all elements of policy development. A policy review was instigated in 2020, prior to the search of Child Q and the subsequent policy changes in 2022, necessitated by Child Q. The scope of this policy review was to update and refresh all aspects of stop and search policy, therefore developments arising from this review naturally reflect the PSED obligations. The culmination of this review was the publication of not only the reviewed 2023 stop and search policy, but also a revised Equality Impact Assessment, which launched simultaneously following internal and external consultation.
The Met continue to be fully engaged in facilitating and participating in local scrutiny, whether in the form of traditional Community Monitoring Groups, Police Encounter Panels, Body Worn Video screenings, external publication of stop and search data including MTIPS or the newly proposed pilot scrutiny. The intention of this participation is to make the Met as open and accountable as possible, to foster good relations between all of London’s communities and the police. By being open to scrutiny of our stop and search practices, we seek to eliminate unlawful discrimination, both individually and institutionally.
Q7 - Please explain how you are monitoring any changes implemented since June 2022, or earlier if relevant, to ensure positive and lasting impact and change.
The presence of the Central Stop & Search Team ensures ongoing central monitoring of any emerging S&S themes, including MTIPs. In terms of everyday monitoring, every single juvenile MTIP is quality assured by the Central Stop & Search Team, with bespoke feedback provided to the officers, their line management, the authorising Inspector and the S&S Lead for the BCU. There is a weekly stop and search meeting, attended by leads from the 12 geographical BCUs and 3 other OCUs, where all aspects of stop and search are discussed, including data, emerging issues, organisational learning and sharing of best practice. These meetings are augmented by a monthly steering group, chaired at DAC-level, where wider organisational issues are discussed. There is also a Child Q Gold Group, formally run under Op Redwood, which sits to discuss matters arising from Child Q.
In addition to the internal monitoring, the Met continues to fully engage in the quarterly Community Monitoring Network meeting, where the collected chairs of the local Community Monitoring Groups hold representatives from the Met to account for stop and search data and activity. The group is fully independent but is facilitated by MOPAC and the meetings are minuted, ensuring any actions are noted and completed.
Q8 - The Met Police admitted to the BBC on 22 May 2023 that it misreported the number of intimate searches that were carried out on children due to a “data transmission error”. Please set out the Met Police’s process for collecting and reporting data in respect of strip searching children, including the quality assurance and risk escalation processes in place, and the changes made to mitigate future “transmission errors”.
The review of individual record level data after the publication of the Child Q safeguarding review led to; the identification of a technical fault in how the electronic search record E5090 form used by officers to record search encounters on personal issue tablets, laptops or desktops communicates with Crimint - the IT system which records all stop and search encounters. The fault was reported and communicated to the Digital, Data and Technology (DDAT) Command and analysts who work with Crimint.
All search records, whether recorded on a paper Form 5090 search record or submitted electronically by tablet, laptop or desktop on an E5090 search record are uploaded onto the CrimInt IT system, including More Though searches where Intimate Parts are exposed (MTIPs) of adults and children. Each search record is supervised by Sgt or above. Where Mayor’s Questions or FOIA requests are made they are managed by an Information Manager from the FOIA team within the Digital, Data and Technology (DDAT) Command, assigned to an analyst skilled to the relevant IT system and, with regards to stop and search requests, sent for quality assurance through the central stop and search tactical policy advisors. Mayor’s Questions require further sign off from the Head of Profession. We are unaware of any Mayor’s Questions or FOIAs (both of which are recorded and logged) not following this quality control process. Risk escalation is undertaken through the Head of Profession, and was in this case leading to the correct figures being widely published externally from the point of discovery. Since the Met updated its MTIP policy on 25 May 2022, every single MTIP on those under 18 is individually reviewed by a stop and search tactical policy advisor.
Q9 - Please confirm timescales for your response to the IOPC report about the five cases they have investigated.
As of 12 October, the Met is in receipt of the investigation reports for four of the five referrals investigated by IOPC. At the time of writing, two out of the five IOPC cases have concluded. The remaining three are ongoing.
For the cases that have concluded, one of the complaints was not upheld whilst the other resulted in a custody sergeant receiving a written warning at a misconduct meeting. The remaining three case are ongoing, either awaiting a decision on whether misconduct proceedings will follow or the conclusion of misconduct proceedings.
To note in relation to your request, which is focused specifically on MTIP’s, only one of these five cases investigated by the IOPC relates to a MTIP (Child Q), the other four investigations relate to post arrest custody strip searches.
IOPC Cases
Case 1 – The investigation has concluded and the decision has been made to bring misconduct proceedings with three of the officers having a case to answer for gross misconduct and one other for misconduct. The misconduct proceedings are yet to commence, it is not yet possible to offer any timescales.
Case 2 – The investigation has concluded. A custody sergeants awaits a misconduct meeting whilst three other officers await the delivery of reflective practice. The misconduct meeting and the delivery of reflective practice should be complete within the next month.
Case 3 – The investigation and proceedings have concluded. A written warning was given to custody sergeant at a misconduct meeting. Further officers were subject to reflective practice.
Case 4 – Concluded, complaint not upheld, no further action taken.
Case 5 – Investigation ongoing, the MPS are yet to receive the investigation report. At this stage there is no indication that any officers may have behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
These cases were the subject of an IOPC press release on 14 September, which can be viewed here.