Sign up
Donate

Crowdfund to stop abusive search policy

Sex Matters is seeking a judicial review of British Transport Police’s searching policy.

Stop male police officers strip-searching women

About the case

What are the outline facts of the case? 

In December 2021, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) approved a policy paper giving guidance that officers should be permitted to search suspects of the opposite sex if they self-identified as the same “gender” as the person being searched. This covered both “more thorough” pat-down searches and “exposure of intimate parts” (EIP) or strip-searches.  A report by the Women’s Rights Network (WRN), State Sanctioned Sexual Assault, found that 35 forces had implemented this policy. There was public outrage and the guidance was withdrawn in January 2024. Individual police forces were told to develop their own policies. 

On 30th September British Transport Police issued its own policy, which was made publicly available on 30th October 2024 through a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request.

BTP’s guidance says:

“Certain provisions in law explicitly state that searches and other procedures may only be carried out by, or in the presence of, persons of the same sex as the person subject to the search.

“In law, the sex of an individual is their sex as registered at birth unless they have been issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), in which case the person’s sex is their acquired sex.”

It says that BTP officers and staff will only search persons of the same sex as stated on either their birth certificate or their GRC. It also allows trans-identifying detainees without a GRC to request to be searched by a member of the opposite sex. 

BTP’s equality-impact assessment (EIA) of the policy said that it does not have any relevance to the protected characteristic of sex. It said that detainees who hold religious or gender-critical views may ask to be searched by someone other than an officer with a GRC. This option is not in the policy. EIAs should review decisions, not read procedures into them that are not there. It is not clear how the suggestion in the EIA, of a woman asking to be searched by an officer with a GRC, would work in practice, as BTP claims that a male officer with a GRC is female and neither the policy or the EIA states that women being searched will be told that they can ask to be searched by a biological woman. 

What is the legal “cause of action”? 

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), searches beyond jacket, outer garments, headwear and footwear must be carried out by officers of the same sex. It is well-established under domestic and international case law and guidance, including from the European Court of Human Rights, that a failure to carry out single-sex searches is a breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (inhuman or degrading treatment).

We are seeking a judicial review of BTP’s decision-making in adopting this policy on three grounds:

  1. The policy is systemically flawed for being inherently incompatible with, sanctioning or encouraging violations of the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010, and is irrational.
  2. The policy amounts to an error of law and/or is incompatible with sections 54 and 55 of PACE.
  3. There has been a breach of the public-sector equality duty and/or failure of sufficient inquiry and/or failure to take into account relevant considerations.

Due to the serious Article 3 ECHR breaches that will occur under BTP’s policy, we have asked the High Court to consider this claim more quickly than usual. 

How strong is the case? 

Our legal team has assessed the case as having good to very good merits. You can read our statement of facts and grounds.

Why is this case significant?

We think the policy comprises a threat of inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3. We also think it is of significant importance, partly because it is a further case, beyond For Women Scotland, in which the concept of “GRC sex” makes nonsense of legislation (this time not directly in relation to the Equality Act but in relation to PACE).

The law requires that searches undertaken by the police are carried out by officers of the same sex as the person being searched. But if police forces replace “sex” with gender identity or “certificated sex”, then instead of protecting the dignity, privacy, autonomy and safety of women and girls they will subject women and girls to state-sponsored sexual assault. 

The High Court will be asked not just to look at the meaning of words in law, but to consider the concrete facts relevant to the case, including the facts of autogynephilia; the way systemic weaknesses tend to act as magnets for abusers; the impossibility of “passing” for most men who identify as women; and the abusive nature of deceit as to sex where intimate procedures or searching are concerned. 

The case goes beyond previous belief-discrimination cases and the definition of sex in the Equality Act to look at a real-world consequence of these concepts. We are seeking to establish that women’s right to be protected against humiliating and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR (which is an absolute right) is engaged and breached by a policy of allowing men with certificates to search women. 

What are the best-case and worst-case outcomes? 

If we win, we hope the court will quash the policy, meaning that it will be treated as not having been made. We are also asking the court to make declarations that the decision to adopt the policy is in breach of the ECHR, the Equality Act and PACE. We hope that case will force BTP (and by extension other forces) to implement only policies that will provide women with assurances that they will be searched only by female officers, and that will protect female officers from being forced and/or pressured to search trans-identifying males. This would have wider implications across other police forces, prisons and other situations of close contact (such as medical and social care), and more broadly into single-sex services. 

If we lose and the court declares that a GRC changes a police officer’s sex for the purpose of searching members of the public, this would strengthen the case for repealing or reforming the Gender Recognition Act. 

We could be refused permission to bring a review claim, or we could be granted permission but the claim could be refused at the trial on the basis that it does not have merit. We don’t think this is very likely, but if refused we would consider appealing. 

Who are the lawyers, and what’s their expertise and track record? 

We are represented by Akua Reindorf KC and Beth Grossman, instructed by solicitor Sasha Rozansky at Deighton Pierce Glynn. 

  • Akua Reindorf KC is a barrister at Cloisters Chambers specialising in employment, discrimination and human-rights law. She acted for LGB Alliance in Mermaids v Charity Commission, and was author of the Reindorf Review commissioned by Essex University to investigate the deplatforming of Professors Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman. She was the Legal Business Awards Barrister of the Year in 2023 and the Chambers UK Bar Awards Employment Junior of the Year in 2022. She was appointed as a Commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2021 and as a fee-paid Employment Judge in 2020. 
  • Beth Grossman is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. She is junior counsel to the Lesbian Interveners in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers (led by Karon Monaghan KC) and represented Julie Bindel in her judicial review against Nottingham City Council for deplatforming (led by Karon Monaghan KC and Akua Reindorf KC).
  • Sasha Rozansky is a partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, named by The Times as one of the top three law firms in judicial review and human rights. She specialises in public law and human rights. She is an expert in women’s rights, consultations, procurements, discrimination and equality law. Sasha has conducted many high-profile judicial-review test cases, covering a wide range of subject areas.

What costs are anticipated?

The costs of the case will depend on how far it goes and whether we win or lose. 

It is being done under a discounted conditional-fee arrangement. This is a risk-sharing mechanism with our legal team. If we lose we will pay a discounted fee. If we win the lawyers will be able to charge their full fees and recover costs back from BTP. This means we are seeking to raise funds to cover the discounted amount.

For the initial stage (including the work done so far) the discounted costs are estimated at £40,000. This is our current fundraising target. If we get permission and the case goes to trial we will need to raise another £50,000 for the next stage.

What will be done with any excess after legal fees are paid?

Any excess left in the fund after all legal fees are paid will be kept in reserve by Sex Matters and used for other work to support our charitable objects.

Case documents