Concerns Over Intrusive Security Searches of Professional Users at London Magistrates' Courts

Professional court users report being subjected to "absurd" and "disturbing" security searches when they attend some London Magistrates' Courts.

Campaign group Transform Justice is the latest body to highlight concerns about the "hands on" approach of some security staff, particularly at Stratford Magistrates' Court.

Court security staff are employed by OCS UK Limited, which is contracted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to provide security at His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service's (HMCTS) sites across England and Wales. The five-year contract, valued at £275 million, commenced on 1st April 2020.

The London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association (LCCSA) has written a formal letter of complaint to HMCTS about the way its members, despite being professional court users, have been subject to "enhanced" searches as they entered Stratford Magistrates' Court.

Those searches are said to be particularly thorough on Tuesdays and Fridays, due to the protest-related trials being listed on those days. LCCSA members report having to remove their outer items of clothing and shoes, empty the contents of their bags and being subject to both wand search and physical "pat down".

In its letter, the LCCSA states: "We have received numerous complaints from defence solicitors about the way these enhanced searches are being conducted, which range from the absurd to the genuinely disturbing. Some of the worst examples include:

• Confiscation of innocuous and harmless personal items, such as make-up compacts;
• A requirement that the subject spray any deodorant and perfume in their possession on their body;
• A requirement that the subject apply lip balm in their possession onto their lips;
• One female solicitor raised numerous complaints as follows: (1) hands being placed inside the neckline of her dress during a pat down search; (2) patting down the sides of the breasts and in between them during another search and (3) having her leg felt under her dress up to her inner thigh, stopping barely short of her crotch;
• One male solicitor used his (professional user access scheme) ID card to gain entry and was not selected for a random search by the machine, yet was still subjected to a wand search and then taken to the side and subjected to a rub-down search, which included the removal of his shoes and an oral examination;
• On 25th January 2024 one female solicitor who went through the metal detector and wand search without setting them off was still subjected to a pat-down search. There were approximately 4 security staff, two of whom were male, dealing with her and due to the unprofessional and discourteous way in which she was being spoken to by one of the (male) officers in particular, she referred to him as an "idiot". She was then forcibly ejected from the court building by two male security officers, had her lunch thrown onto the pavement and was denied re-entry (despite the fact that she was appearing as a duty solicitor that day). We understand that this incident was also reported to the police.

"These are a selection of the complaints we have received recently following a request of our members to detail their experiences with the security staff at Stratford. We understand that other professional court user groups, such as prosecution lawyers and (Youth Offending Service) staff, are raising similar concerns. We also understand that when individual security officers are asked to identify themselves for the purpose of a complaint, they are refusing to do so."

These are very serious concerns and the LCCSA has legitimate cause for complaint.

Of course security staff have a duty to ensure the safety and wellbeing of everyone attending the court building, but that needs to be achieved with the minimum of fuss and inconvenience. It also needs to be done in a such a manner that no-one feels alienated or offended by their interaction with the security staff concerned.

In a large venue like Stratford Magistrates' Court it is less likely individual members of security staff will recognise every professional court user, but if their identity is known, or can be reliably ascertained, then they should be subject to no more than a wand search and, if the officer considers it absolutely necessary, an open bag search.

Unknown members of the public need to be subject to a more thorough search - perhaps being asked to turn out pockets, remove their non-religious headwear or outdoor coat, take a drink from their bottle - but even so I would consider a "pat down" overly-obtrusive and inappropriate.

That's just my take and it'll be interesting to see HMCTS's response once its investigations are complete.