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.

Formal Warning for Ranting Magistrate

A Magistrate who "ranted loudly" at a member of court staff has received a formal warning.

Don Wicks JP, of the Essex North Bench, was said to have shouted at a member of court staff on two separate occasions. It was further alleged that he had failed to engage with the Bench Chair in relation to the outbursts.

The allegations were referred to the South East Regional Advisory Committee for investigation.

A conduct panel concluded that Mr Wicks "had ranted loudly" and "in an aggressive manner" at the staff member concerned. The panel was of the view that the comments were inappropriate and threatening.

The panel did not make any misconduct findings with regard to Mr Wicks' alleged lack of engagement with the Bench Chair.

Mr Wicks accepted that he had raised his voice towards the member of staff on both occasions, but said his actions were borne out of frustration. He has apologised to the staff member concerned.

Mr Justice Keehan and the Lord Chancellor agreed with the conduct panel's findings that Mr Wicks' actions risked damage to the reputation and good standing of the wider judiciary and issued Mr Wicks with a formal warning.

You can read the disciplinary statement on the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office's website.

Tommy Robinson Cleared of Failing to Comply with Police Dispersal Direction

Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has been cleared of failing to comply with a police dispersal direction.

Robinson, real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, 41, was accused of failing to comply with a direction issued under section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

He has been cleared of the offence during a trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 23rd April 2024.

Having heard the prosecution's case - which was, quite frankly, abysmal - District Judge Daniel Sternberg, presiding over the trial, concluded that there was no case to answer. In other words, taking the prosecution evidence at its highest, no properly-directed and reasonable tribunal of fact could find the offence proved to the required standard.

The offence was said to have taken place on Sunday, 26th November 2023, when Robinson attended a protest march against anti-semitism in central London.

He was accused of failing to comply with a section 35 direction when he refused to leave the area outside the Royal Courts of Justice on The Strand.

By way of context, I should explain that a section 35 direction can only be issued where an officer of at least inspector rank has granted an authorisation under section 34 of the Act. Such an authorisation can only be granted for a maximum of 48 hours.

It now transpires that the section 35 direction Robinson was arrested over was issued outside the time and locality to which the section 34 authorisation applied.

Inspector Steve Parker-Phipps, who granted the section 34 authorisation, told the court that because his laptop was almost dead, he mistakenly timed and dated it as 10 am on 24th instead of 10 am on 26th November. That being the case, the authorisation had already lapsed by the time Robinson was arrested on the afternoon of 26th November.

Alasdair Williamson KC, defending, put it to Inspector Parker-Phipps: "This document is not correct, is it? Can we have any confidence that a lawful order was in place?"

The officer replied: "No."

With that it was game over. How could the prosecution possibly prove its case?

It also turns out that even if the section 34 authorisation had been valid, the manner in which the officer made the section 35 direction was defective. This is because the officer making the direction failed to take into account Robinson's claims of acting as a journalist at the protest - which, given his vast following, seems an entirely reasonable claim - and also gave insufficient time for Robinson to leave the area as directed.

This is a complete and utter shambles. How many reviewing Met and CPS lawyers have overlooked the glaringly obvious flaws in this prosecution? Did they feel compelled to get it "over the line" due to the high profile nature of the defendant?

A total waste of time, effort and public funds in prosecuting an offence that simply didn't exist. I take personal offence that such a fundamentally flawed, poorly prepared case has been pushed in the direction of the court. It's an insult. As if that's not bad enough, Robinson will undoubtedly now receive tens of thousands in compensation as a result of his unlawful arrest and detention.

This whole episode is absolutely cringeworthy.

Lucy Letby Appeal Hearing

The case of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six more, will be considered by the Court of Appeal tomorrow.

Letby, 34, made two attempts on the life of one of the babies, so was convicted of seven counts of attempted murder.

She committed her crimes between June 2015 and June 2016, when she was working as a band 5 nurse on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester.

Letby received a whole-life sentence for each of the fourteen counts she was convicted of.

Sentencing, The Hon. Mr Justice Goss, said: "This was a cruel, calculated and cynical campaign of child murder involving the smallest and most vulnerable of children, knowing that your actions were causing significant physical suffering and would cause untold mental suffering."

Letby has denied the crimes from the outset. At times during her ten month trial she sought to attribute blame to her colleagues and conditions on the unit.

The appeal hearing, before Lord Justice Holroyde, Lady Justice Sharp and Mrs Justice Lambert, is listed for 22nd, 23rd and 25th April 2024.