Blog: The power of police officers to remove a detainee's clothing without consent

Section 54 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) deals with the search of persons detained at a police station. Section 54(4)(a) provides that “clothes and personal effects may only be seized if the custody officer … believes that the person from whom they are seized may use them” to, among other things, cause physical injury to himself or another person, damage property, interfere with evidence or assist an escape.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal, Matthew Carter v The Chief Constable of Essex Police [2025] EWCA Civ 367 (“Carter”), has sought to provide further clarity regarding these provisions. The central question for the Court of Appeal was whether a custody officer’s relevant belief for the purpose of exercising the power under s. 54(4)(a) PACE to seize clothes or personal effects of a detainee brought to a police station after (lawful) arrest must be not only genuine but also based on reasonable grounds.

Facts of the case

On 14 December 2017, Mr Carter was arrested after reports that he had assaulted two women at a pub. He denied the allegations, maintaining that he had been the victim of racist abuse.

Mr Carter was conveyed to Southend Police Station and placed in a holding cell. He was refused access to a toilet and urinated in his clothes. Twenty minutes later, he was brought to the custody desk in this state. He did not answer the pro forma risk assessment questions put to him by the custody officer, but sought to protest his innocence and his concern about missing his partner’s funeral the next day.

Mr Carter became agitated and police officers pushed him face down onto the custody desk. He was subsequently struck several times and restrained with handcuffs and leg restraints.

A strip search was authorised under section 54(4)(a) of PACE to change Mr Carter into an anti-self-harm suit. Mr Carter was taken to a cell in order for six police officers forcibly to remove all his clothes. He was restrained face down while his clothes were cut off him. He was left in a different cell with an anti-self-harm suit on the bench.

Mr Carter brought proceedings against the police force, claiming assault and battery in respect of the various uses of force against him. At first instance, the Court held that the police officers had subjected him to a battery in respect of the forcible removal of his clothes only. However, this was overturned by the High Court on appeal.

What Did the Court of Appeal Decide?

The Court of Appeal was asked to decide what a custody officer must believe before removing a detainee's clothing under section 54(4) of PACE.

The Court of Appeal held that the officer must genuinely believe that the detainee may use the clothing to harm themselves or someone else, damage property, interfere with evidence, or escape. The law does not require the officer to have objectively reasonable grounds for that belief. However, if the belief appears unreasonable, a court may take that into account when deciding whether the officer genuinely held it.

Safeguards

While the ruling in Carter confirms that the statutory test under section 54(4)(a) depends on the custody officer's genuine belief, it does not give the police permission to ignore the safeguards contained in PACE and PACE Code C. These safeguards are designed to protect a detainee’s dignity, privacy, welfare and physical and psychological integrity.

It is important to note that the Carter case was primarily concerned with the power to seize and remove clothing under section 54 of PACE. Although the removal of clothing may involve a strip search in practice, the two concepts are not identical. A detainee's clothing may be removed for safety reasons under section 54 of PACE, whereas a strip search is a distinct procedure governed by additional safeguards in PACE Code C. The Court of Appeal has recognised that the removal of a detainee's clothing may amount to a significant interference with a person's bodily and psychological integrity and may engage rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).

Accordingly, the police have a number of obligations which they must comply with while conducting a strip search:

- Strip searches cannot be carried out routinely. There must be a specific reason for them and the police officer should explain why you are being searched.

- The search must be carried out by an officer of the same gender as you. Liberty has published an explainer on the rights of trans/non-binary persons in custody here: Your rights as a trans/non-binary person if you’re arrested - Liberty

- The search must take place in an area where you cannot be seen by anyone who does not need to be there, and you must not be visible to a member of the opposite sex (unless you have explicitly requested your "appropriate adult" to be present).

- Officers must show proper regard for your dignity, sensitivity, vulnerability, health, hygiene, and welfare. They must make every reasonable effort to secure your co-operation and minimise your embarrassment.

- You should not normally be required to remove all your clothes at the same time. For example, you should be allowed to remove your upper clothing and dress again before removing your lower clothing.

- The search must be conducted as quickly as possible, and you must be allowed to dress the moment it is finished.

- Except in cases of absolute urgency where there is a risk of serious harm, if a strip search involves exposing intimate body parts, there must be at least two people present (and if you are a juvenile or vulnerable person, one of those people must be an appropriate adult).

- If your clothes are seized, you must be told the reason why, unless you are violent, likely to become violent, or incapable of understanding. Additionally, a detailed record of the search, the reasons it was necessary, and everyone present must be logged in your custody record.

The domestic and international Courts have repeatedly recognised that a strip search is a serious interference with a person's bodily integrity, which can engage Article 3 (freedom from degrading treatment) of the Human Rights Act. In R (LW and others) v Sodexo Ltd and Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Justice Julian Knowles observed that it is "well established" that a strip search may amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. Similarly, in R (BK and RH) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWCA Civ 1259, the Court of Appeal held that there can be no doubt that strip-searching is capable of engaging both Article 3 and Article 8 rights and stressed the importance of rigorous compliance with prescribed procedures and the protection of human dignity. In reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeal relied on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Wainwright v United Kingdom (2007) 44 EHRR 40.

For a strip search to breach Article 3 ECHR, the ill-treatment must reach a "minimum level of severity." The court will consider all the circumstances, including the manner in which the search was conducted, its duration, its physical and psychological effects, whether proper safeguards were observed, and the age, sex, health and vulnerability of the individual concerned.

Seeking accountability

Where clothing is removed under section 54 of PACE for safety reasons, the legal position is less straightforward. In Carter, the Court of Appeal noted that some of the detailed provisions in Annex A of Code C were written for strip searches conducted to look for concealed items, rather than for the removal of clothing to prevent self-harm. However, the Court has indicated that at the very least the spirit of the safeguards and protections set out therein should apply, including requirements relating to privacy, dignity, sensitivity, same-sex officers where possible and conducting the procedure as quickly as circumstances permit.

While a failure by the police to strictly follow the PACE Codes does not automatically entitle a person to compensation, those failures may be highly relevant when determining whether the police has acted lawfully. At DPG, we understand how deeply distressing and intrusive the removal of clothing or a strip search can be and, if the statutory safeguards designed to protect dignity fail, we can help individuals secure the accountability they deserve.

This blog post was prepared with contributions from members of our legal team including: Michael Taghipour, Ralitsa Peykova and Emily Soothill. It is for general information and is not intended to be used as legal advice.