Recommendation 1
IOPC recommendationThe 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
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. 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.