Viewpoint: Child ‘Q,’ a fair decision or a gross miscarriage of justice?

Chris Hobbs argues that the officers who strip searched a black schoolgirl after she was suspected of concealing drugs were treated harshly by the misconduct panel chaired by a Met commander.

The decision in respect of the treatment of Child Q by three Met officers, that two were ‘guilty’ of gross misconduct and one of misconduct, would have come as no surprise to their colleagues across London. The panel’s findings were not immediately followed by the sanctions so some might have anticipated careful deliberation lasting perhaps a few days before the axe fell. That was not to be.

In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, the Met issued a statement via Commander Kevin Southworth (pictured –  but who, incidentally, was not the officer who chaired the panel), which whilst full of contrition, was also an admission of huge failings by the organisation. This was interpreted as a statement of mitigation in respect of all three officers.

It was later in the evening that the Met proclaimed that, despite the apparent mitigation in their earlier statement, two of the officers accused of gross misconduct had been sacked whilst the third had received a final written warning. The reaction of the Met’s beleaguered and already demoralised front line will unquestionably be that two more of their colleagues have been ‘thrown under the bus.’

There is no doubt that what happened to child ‘Q’ should not have occurred and there had to be some form of criticism, sanction and compensation, but there are many still unanswered questions that were not considered in the report compiled in the immediate aftermath of the incident and these remain unanswered. Perhaps the gaps will be filled in by virtue of the Chairman’s report.

There is also no information as to what intelligence, if any, was relevant to the incident. Initial reports suggested that child ‘Q’ had previously come into school accompanied by the odour of cannabis which was noticed by teaching staff. It begs the question as to whether a); this actually was the case back then and b); was this alleged by teachers on this occasion; if so, did the officers also detect the odour of cannabis?

There was also the question of whether any intelligence/information in relation to child Q, her family, her family’s associates and the address, was held by police, the school or social services. If so, did officers access it or attempt to access it? It may well be that such intelligence/information would be too sensitive to be placed in the public domain and of course, child ‘Q’ should not be exposed to any further trauma. However, it is not clear, at present whether any section of this hearing was held in camera in relation to intelligence/information concerning Child ‘Q.’

“Organisational failings”

There appears to be no suggestion that the officers knew their course of action was wrong but went ahead anyway. If that were shown to be the case then dismissal would unquestionably have been justified. However, the Met, in its reaction to this case, have admitted ‘organisational failings’ and that the training of officers was inadequate.

The Met went on to say that,’ “This left officers, often young in service or junior in rank, making difficult decisions in complex situations with little information, support or clear resources to help their decision-making.”

Modern training in the Met together with other forces often emanates from the College of Policing; it’s frequently computer based and generally received with a distinct lack of approbation.

The question of support equates to supervision: Cutbacks that began during the Theresa May era  resulted in the reorganisation of the Met and, in consequence, the training of officers has unquestionably suffered; officers on the front line, frequently with relatively little experience are left to ‘mentor’ and advise those with even less experience. Sergeants and Inspectors now have more ‘ground to cover’ than ever before and inevitably matters fall through the cracks. The role of supervising sergeants and inspectors in this case has not, apparently, been specifically referred to as yet, possibly for that very reason. The Met is in a mess, has been for a while and this incident may well be a symptom of that fact.

The damage caused by County Lines gangs

Whilst the officers involved in the Child ‘Q’ incident may not have been aware of their powers and procedures, they would have been aware of the damage inflicted by County Lines drugs gangs.

In November 2023, a report by the former Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, strongly suggested that the government should take the exploitation of Britain’s youth as seriously as terrorism. She also stated that children as young as nine were ‘running drugs’ and 200,000 children were vulnerable. She went on to say that, “those most at risk are teenagers growing up in poverty in deprived areas and they are disproportionately from black, brown and other ethnic minority backgrounds.”

This stark reality is not the fault of the police but that of local and national politicians on both sides of the divide. It’s the police, however, inadequately trained and resourced and at considerable personal risk to themselves, who have to apply the sticking plasters. When I refer to ‘personal risk’ to themselves, I don’t just mean in terms of physical danger and injury as seen in the Hainault incident;  I mean in terms of having to make decisions where ‘getting it wrong’ can have life changing consequences.

If the panel had, on the basis of evidence, reached the view that the actions of officers was racially motivated then there could be few, if any arguments against dismissal; however, it was made clear that this was not the case. Yet, the panel and the Met laid great emphasis on the fact that this incident damaged relations between the police and the black community. This fact is inescapable but it’s hard not to conclude that these damaged relations were the driving force, be it consciously or otherwise, behind the decision to dismiss.

Eastenders and the searching of schoolgirls

Interestingly, Eastenders joined the argument recently with a storyline that featured one of its excellent youthful female actors who portrays a 15-year-old Sikh schoolgirl. A drugs packet was found at her feet and she was subjected to a strip search at the fictional Walford police station. The officers were cold and unsympathetic yet, as was stressed, the procedure was followed to the letter. Nothing was found yet this and subsequent episodes made clear the views of the scriptwriters and producers. I would have hoped that panel members would have disqualified themselves had they seen these episodes.

In both its first and second responses to the ‘guilty’ verdicts, the Met emphasised that training had improved and that reduced numbers of MTIP (More Thorough Intimate Parts) searches had taken place; however, they did have a surprisingly high ‘success’ rate of over 60%.

This statement, surprisingly, went on to state that:

On average in London, in the five years to 31 May 2025, we have each year seen 499 children (aged 17 and under) recorded as a victim of crime after being injured with a knife, not including domestic abuse related incidents.

Tragically, during that five-year period, 59 of those children were fatally stabbed.

An annual average of 432 children were arrested for possession with intent to supply drugs and an annual average of 1,626 were arrested for possession of an offensive weapon.

If  a victim had suffered an identical ordeal but was white and there had been little adverse publicity, the question has to be asked whether the punishment for officers would have been as severe.

As far as Child Q is concerned, I’m sure that serving and retired officers including those now former officers who have been subjected to what many will feel are harsh life-changing punishments, will nevertheless hope child ‘Q’ recovers from her ordeal and enjoys a happy and fulfilling future.

Chris Hobbs is a former Special Branch officer who served in the Met. 

Category: Gross misconductMisconduct proceedingsRaceStop and search