HMCTS says it’s urgently investigating allegations
A leading London chambers says it will not be sending its pupil barristers to Stratford Magistrates Court following allegations of “invasive searches” conducted by security.
Garden Court Chambers expressed concern over the reports of invasive searches at Stratford Magistrates’ Court, stating that “as a Chambers we have a duty to ensure our pupils’ safety and wellbeing”.
The statement published yesterday goes on to say that it “would risk breaching those obligations” if it sent pupils to the court before the allegations have been fully investigated and resolved. “As such, we shall not be sending our pupils to this court until that happens,” the statement added.
The decision comes after several lawyers raised concerns about the approach to security at the court.
In a recent letter addressed to the head of security at HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), the London Criminal Courts’ Solicitors’ Association expressed deep concern over reports of “over-zealous and heavy-handed” enhanced searches, finding them “extremely concerning”.
The association said these enhanced searches can include the “use of a ‘wand’ metal-detection device, ‘pat down’ search (often after the subject has been asked to move to a secluded area, off the foyer), removal of clothing (most notably shoes) and an extensive property search, which includes inspection of privileged legal documents and the requirement that the entire contents of bags be emptied out onto a tray.”
Some complaints received by the LCCSA talk about a host of other security actions “which range from the absurd to the genuinely disturbing,” the letter continues. These claims include lawyers being required to spray deodorant and perfume on their body and apply lip balm onto their lips, with one professional subjected to “an oral examination”.
While acknowledging security concerns within the court following recent “protest-related trials” which led to “some disruption”, the group said “this is causing distress and inconvenience to our members that they should not have to endure as part of their working day”.
“I am sure you can appreciate that our members must enter the court building because they have professional obligations to the court and to their clients to be present within the court building on time,” the letter continues. “They are therefore effectively forced to endure whatever is imposed upon them by the security staff because if they refuse or raise objection at the time, they will not be allowed into the building and this is obviously not an option for them.”
A HMCTS spokesperson said: “These are serious complaints and we are urgently investigating them as a matter of priority. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage. Our security measures are designed to protect the safety of all court users within our premises and remain under constant review. They are put in place in consultation with judiciary and the police.”
A Law Society spokesperson commented that “a number of serious incidents” had been brought to its attention, following a “pattern of alleged rogue behaviour”.
“We are making urgent enquiries of HMCTS to establish the facts and to secure assurances as to the safety of our members,” the spokesperson added.
(
(
