UK Inquiry Tracker

Recommendation 1 Accepted

Recommendation

The IOPC recommends that all Surrey Police custody implement measures in its custody suites to prevent the routine CCTV recording of strip and intimate searches of detainees, as soon as reasonably practicable. This follows an investigation where a female was … Read moreThe IOPC recommends that all Surrey Police custody implement measures in its custody suites to prevent the routine CCTV recording of strip and intimate searches of detainees, as soon as reasonably practicable. This follows an investigation where a female was arrested, and a strip search was requested due to suspicion of the detainee concealing an item in her bra. The detainee was taken to custody and placed in cell with CCTV recording, where her top half was strip searched. The monitoring screen was turned off but the CCTV recorded and stored the footage of the search. Surrey Police’s CCTV in Custody policy (v4.02.19) suggests that in all its custody suites all cells have CCTV cameras which are continuously recording. Surrey Police do not have the facility to turn off the recording. However, there is nothing in this policy that permits the routine recording of all strip or intimate searches. Routinely recording Strip or intimate searches breaches article 8 ECHR and therefore the HRA 1998. Article 8 ECHR guarantees everyone the right to respect for his private and family life. Recording a strip search is clearly an interference with the article and must therefore be justified. Routinely recoding strip searches purely because Surrey Police do not have the facility to turn off the recording is not considered an appropriate justification. The practice is also in breach of the APP detention and custody policy which states that “Forces should not generally use cells equipped with CCTV to conduct strip searches.” Paragraph 1.1 of the CCTV policy states that the policy is complaint with the HRA 1998 and the APP Detention and Custody. As the practice of routinely recording strip and intimate searches breaches all three. The practice is therefore inconsistent with the CCTV policy.It is therefore considered necessary for Surrey police to implement measures to prevent the routine recording of strip searches within their custody suites in order to be compliant with their CCTV policy, the ECHR and APP. Do you accept the recommendation? No Show less

Force Response

Accepted action: As Appropriate Authority I have liaised with the Head of Custody for Surrey Police who has assisted with the following response: "Thank you for your recent letter asking us to provide greater justification for routinely recording strip searches. … Read moreAccepted action: As Appropriate Authority I have liaised with the Head of Custody for Surrey Police who has assisted with the following response: "Thank you for your recent letter asking us to provide greater justification for routinely recording strip searches. The main reason is to protect the rights and interests of the suspect. A record shows how the search has been conducted and ensures that there can be no abuse of the powers at any time. The recording of interviews was introduced by PACE for much the same reason and the videoing of strip searches seems entirely consistent with that regime of transparency and accountability. It is no doubt for this reason that the videoing of strip searches is not prohibited by Code C of PACE which deals with detention or the College of Policing guidance on the use of CCTV in custody facilities. It is of course important that the rights of the suspect to privacy are preserved but this can be done by switching off all monitors and controlling access to the copies of the video. The copies will only be viewed where there is an urgent and lawful need such as legal disclosure or serious complaint via PSD/IOPC such as in this case. This is provided for by in our new and updated policy (attached) We do not see that the making of a copy increases the intrusion into the suspect’s privacy because it will usually not be viewed by anyone.It will merely be kept as a copy and in so doing provide a record that will ensure that there has been no abuse of police powers in the search or provide evidence if the suspect alleges an abuse of those powers. This is in the interests of the suspect and protects rather than undermines their rights under Article 8. It also seems to me that the real act of intrusion into privacy is the search itself (which will be in accordance with the law) rather than the recording. The recording is in the suspect’s interests because it provides a clear record and prevents any abuse happening - the same rationale as tape recording interviews. In direct response to this incident, we have fully reviewed our strip search policy, communicated with staff to ensure justification and documentation is correct and fully lawful, reiterated the legal basis of a strip search, also fully reviewed our training package for all new starters and refreshers. We have strict and robust checks and measures in place to ensure our processes are correct and staff are complying with the required legislation, this is indeed how this matter was discovered and subsequently referred. As a result of this incident I have checked with surrounding forces and our policy and process in relation to strip searching and CCTV retention is in line with theirs." It is for the reasons referred to above and in previous correspondence during consultation that this recommendation is not accepted. Show less

Recommendation 2 Awaiting Response

Recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Surrey Police review and update the CCTV in Custody policy (v4.02.19) to reflect: a) that it is not standard procedure to CCTV record strip or intimate searches, and that the recording of such searches should not … Read moreThe IOPC recommends that Surrey Police review and update the CCTV in Custody policy (v4.02.19) to reflect: a) that it is not standard procedure to CCTV record strip or intimate searches, and that the recording of such searches should not be considered to be routine. b) any measures implemented to prevent the routine CCTV recording of strip and intimate searches, including who is responsible for ensuring that strip and intimate searches are not routinely recorded on CCTV without justification c) the legislation and guidance that should be applied in deciding whether recording a strip and/or intimate search can be justified in the circumstances, including who is responsible for authorising the recording of the search. d) That in any circumstances where a strip or intimate search is recorded on CCTV, it is documented, and a rationale for the recording is provided on the custody record by the authorising officer. Following a recent IOPC investigation, in which a female detainee was strip searched in a cell equipped with CCTV, which recorded and stored footage of the search, the IOPC has identified issues with the Surrey Police CCTV in Custody policy (v4.02.19). Section 3.1 states “All cells are equipped with CCTV cameras. All activity in cells is continuously recorded”. Section 7.1 states “The custody officer will ensure that cells equipped with CCTV should not be used to conduct a ‘strip search’ whilst monitoring is in operation. The Codes of Practice indicate that, in essence, such searches must be conducted in private. It is unlikely that a monitored cell would be considered a private place for these purposes. Whilst we do not have the facility to switch off CCTV cameras, any CCTV monitor should be switched off for this purpose.” This has led to a standard practice of all strip/intimate searches being conducted in cells which are recorded via CCTV, with the assumption that if the monitoring screen is turned off this is appropriate. The IOPC considers that the Surrey Police policy to turn off the monitoring screens when conducting a strip search in a cell equipped with CCTV is in line with PACE Code C Annex A 11(b). However, as the Surrey Police CCTV in Custody policy does not state that it is not standard practice for strip searches to be conducted in cells equipped with CCTV and therefore it has become common practice within Surrey Custody for all strip/intimate searches to be conducted in this manner. However, this practice is not in line with the APP which suggests; “Forces should not generally use cells equipped with CCTV to conduct strip searches or for consultations between detainees and their legal representative. There may be occasions when recording a strip search via CCTV is desirable for the protection of staff, but officers must consider PACE Code C Annex A paragraph 11(b). The recording of the search must be shown to be necessary and proportionate in the circumstances”. Therefore, Surrey Police CCTV in Custody policy needs to be clear on the procedure for strip searches and updated to reflect the appropriate practice, to indicate cells with CCTV are not generally used for strip searches. Furthermore, Surrey Police CCTV In Custody policy needs to reflect any implementations made to prevent the routine practice of strip searches being conducted in cells equipped with CCTV. In addition, the APP indicates there may be some circumstances in which it could be “desirable” for a cell equipped with CCTV to be used. However, this needs to be recorded as necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. In addition, the ECHR Article 8 Respect to private and family life, indicates the CCTV recording of a strip/intimate search is a breach of this right and therefore any intrusions upon this must be recorded and a rationale provided as to why this was necessary. Moreover, the Surrey Police CCTV in Custody policy notes it is written in accordance with the APP and ECHR however the current practice of recording strip/intimate searches is not in line with this guidance, and therefore the policy requires updating to adhere be this statement to be accurate. Therefore, due to the level of intrusion on a person’s privacy and potential breaches of legislation and guidance in addition to PACE, the Surrey Police CCTV in Custody Policy needs to reflect that if a strip search is conducted in a cell equipped with CCTV, which records the search, the authorizing officer needs to record this and a rationale as to why It was necessary and proportionate in consideration of all the factors. Do you accept the recommendation? No As Appropriate Authority I have liaised with the Head of Custody who has provided the response provided in the previous recommendation. I have attached the Custody Strip Search policy which, as the Head of Custody refers to, has been completely revised. Training packages have also been reviewed and communications have been circulated to staff reiterating the justification and documentation required for strip searches."In direct response to this incident, we have fully reviewed our strip search policy, communicated with staff to ensure justification and documentation is correct and fully lawful, reiterated the legal basis of a strip search, also fully reviewed our training package for all new starters and refreshers. We have strict and robust checks and measures in place to ensure our processes are correct and staff are complying with the required legislation, this is indeed how this matter was discovered and subsequently referred. As a result of this incident I have checked with surrounding forces and our policy and process in relation to strip searching and CCTV retention is in line with theirs." Whilst this policy has been reviewed we are unable to accept this recommendation in full (all 4 points within this recommendation) on the same basis as the previous one. Show less

Recommendation 3 Accepted

Recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Surrey Police should ensure all custody officers and staff are made aware of and understand any new measures and guidance that are implemented to prevent the routine CCTV recording of strip and intimate searches of detainees. … Read more

Force Response

Accepted action: As Appropriate Authority I have liaised with the Head of Custody who has advisedIn direct response to this incident, we have fully reviewed our strip search policy, communicated with staff to ensure justification and documentation is correct and … Read more

Recommendations - Surrey Police, August 2020

Recommendations (3)