London police officers face action over woman's strip-search
Discussion
The BBC reports that "Eight police officers are to face disciplinary action after policemen strip-searched a woman who had been arrested outside a London nightclub.". They then left the naked woman in a cell and allowed the video images of her to be transmitted to the custody desk. The police also failed to investigate her allegation that her drink was spiked at the nightclub.
They are to face "Disciplinary action"! Is this not a sexual assault which, if they are found guilty, could result in them being placed on the sexual offenders register?
I wonder if this assault will get to court?
They are to face "Disciplinary action"! Is this not a sexual assault which, if they are found guilty, could result in them being placed on the sexual offenders register?
I wonder if this assault will get to court?
Is there any prospect of it going to court?
"The IPCC also said the police sergeant on duty should face a charge of gross misconduct for failing to make a written record of the strip-search or make sure that it was carried out in line with the rules.
Five constables should face misconduct proceedings for breaching the guidelines for searches, while another two should face "management action", an internal measure.
One of the officers is accused of potentially discouraging the 22-year-old from getting legal advice by implying that she would have to stay at the police station for longer if she did so.
The woman complained about her treatment to Scotland Yard, which carried out its own investigation, but she was unhappy with the findings and so went to the IPCC."
Looks like internal disciplinary proceedings to me. They are to be carried out by their own force which has already investigated them and will only do so again as it has been ordered to by the IPCC.
http://news.sky.com/story/1122762/clubber-strip-se...
"The IPCC also said the police sergeant on duty should face a charge of gross misconduct for failing to make a written record of the strip-search or make sure that it was carried out in line with the rules.
Five constables should face misconduct proceedings for breaching the guidelines for searches, while another two should face "management action", an internal measure.
One of the officers is accused of potentially discouraging the 22-year-old from getting legal advice by implying that she would have to stay at the police station for longer if she did so.
The woman complained about her treatment to Scotland Yard, which carried out its own investigation, but she was unhappy with the findings and so went to the IPCC."
Looks like internal disciplinary proceedings to me. They are to be carried out by their own force which has already investigated them and will only do so again as it has been ordered to by the IPCC.
http://news.sky.com/story/1122762/clubber-strip-se...
Carnage said:
It's not a sexual assault as they haven't had a sexual intent. It's a breach of the codes of practise setting out how's these things should be done correctly. Hence it's being treated as misconduct.
No sexual intent? That's because five of them had to see her naked just to be really, really, really sure she didn't have loads of nasty drugs all stuck to her naked body! Obviously.
Who wants to see young 22 year old girls naked anyway? Not these guys!
The IPCC chairman said "I find it difficult to understand why police officers think they have the right to strip a young woman of all her clothes, leaving her naked for half-an-hour and then expose her to being filmed."
"I am sure, like the complainant, the public will want to understand how this was allowed to happen. I look forward to the misconduct process getting the answers that are needed."
The answer to that should be interesting.
"I am sure, like the complainant, the public will want to understand how this was allowed to happen. I look forward to the misconduct process getting the answers that are needed."
The answer to that should be interesting.
ks. Were all the male police officers gay? _dobbo_ said:
No sexual intent?
That's because five of them had to see her naked just to be really, really, really sure she didn't have loads of nasty drugs all stuck to her naked body! Obviously.
Who wants to see young 22 year old girls naked anyway? Not these guys!
Even if that was the case, looking at someone is not an assault. No assault = no sexual assault. As the poster above says, they will have to justify why they conducted themselves in a way so far from the guidelines. That's because five of them had to see her naked just to be really, really, really sure she didn't have loads of nasty drugs all stuck to her naked body! Obviously.
Who wants to see young 22 year old girls naked anyway? Not these guys!
Carnage said:
Even if that was the case, looking at someone is not an assault. No assault = no sexual assault. As the poster above says, they will have to justify why they conducted themselves in a way so far from the guidelines.
Forcibly stripping someone of there clothes is an assault and a sexual assault at that.davidball said:
Do you really believe that if a member of the public forcibly stripped a woman of her clothes then filmed her he would not be charged with a sexual assault?
Probably. But he would also be charged if he carried a baton, pepper spray, kicked a door in, all sorts of things that the police do in the course of their duty. davidball said:
Do you really believe that if a member of the public forcibly stripped a woman of her clothes then filmed her he would not be charged with a sexual assault?
Probably. But he would also be charged if he carried a baton, pepper spray, kicked a door in, all sorts of things that the police do in the course of their duty. davidball said:
Do you really believe that if a member of the public forcibly stripped a woman of her clothes then filmed her he would not be charged with a sexual assault?
Probably. But he would also be charged if he carried a baton, pepper spray, kicked a door in, all sorts of things that the police do in the course of their duty. Carnage said:
That's a response to Dobbo. Try quoting the whole thing to see it in context...
So the "context" makes the assault permissible? We are back to the one law for the police and another for the rest of us. You seem to think that because the assault took place in a police cell by a group of men it is ok.Edited by davidball on Wednesday 31st July 22:11
davidball said:
So the "context" make the assault permissible? We are back to the one law for the police and another for the rest of us. You seem to think that because the assault took place in a police cell by a group of men it is ok.
No, keep up. I'm suggesting you need to quote the post I'm replying to to put my reply in context.davidball said:
So the "context" make the assault permissible? We are back to the one law for the police and another for the rest of us. You seem to think that because the assault took place in a police cell by a group of men it is ok.
No, keep up. I'm suggesting you need to quote the post I'm replying to to put my reply in context.In this case, the officers have strip searched a woman who they thought might have had drugs on her. There are, rightly, strict rules on how this should be done. These are set out in the codes of practice. The search is not a sexual assault. However, if what the IPCC are saying is right, the search was carried out incorrectly and against the guidelines there to look after the detainees. This, while not criminal, is misconduct and the officers could lose their jobs if they can't explain why they did it.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff