The High Court has ruled that transgender suspects can request to be strip-searched by an officer of a different sex, dismissing a legal challenge that sought to overturn interim police guidance. The charity Sex Matters brought the action against guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the British Transport Police (BTP), which allows for cross-sex searches under specific conditions.
Women's rights campaigners argued that the guidance put female officers under pressure to search detainees who are biologically male but identify as women. However, Mr Justice Linden dismissed the challenge, ruling that police officers can lawfully conduct strip-searches of people of a different sex, provided that both the suspect and the officer consent. He stated that the NPCC and BTP acted lawfully in issuing the advice.
The guidance was amended in 2025 following a Supreme Court ruling on biological sex, which aimed to prevent biological male officers from conducting intimate searches of women. Despite this amendment, the NPCC's guidance continues to permit biological male suspects who identify as women to request searches by female officers.
During the legal proceedings, the NPCC and BTP defended the guidance, emphasizing that consent from both the officer and the individual being searched is required. Mr Justice Linden noted that genuine consent would mitigate distress for the detained transgender person, rather than increase it. The guidance also clarifies that individual officers have the discretion to refuse to conduct a search of a person of a different sex and can withdraw consent at any time.
The core of the dispute centered on the interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace), which stipulates that officers should generally conduct strip-searches on individuals of the same sex. Lawyers for Sex Matters argued that this constituted a "same-sex guarantee" that police could not override by creating a consensual regime. They also contended that the guidance failed to adequately consider the impact on female police officers and female detainees participating in opposite-sex strip searches.
Representing the NPCC and BTP, counsel argued that strip searches are inherently distressing and that this risk could be heightened when the gender of the person being searched differs from the officer's, even if their biological sexes align. They highlighted scenarios such as a male officer searching a trans woman with surgically constructed female genitalia. The guidance, they maintained, was designed to address these issues by permitting cross-sex searches only with full and free consent from both parties.
Mr Justice Linden concluded that the law under Pace does not preclude strip searches conducted with mutually agreed terms regarding the sex of the police officer. He also suggested that the guidance provides protections against pressure on female officers, ensuring that if difficulties arise or time is a constraint, an officer of the same sex will conduct the search.
Sex Matters chief executive Maya Forstater expressed disappointment with the ruling and indicated the charity's intention to appeal. She stated that the case aimed to uphold the rule of law, asserting that Parliament would have specified such a provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act if it had intended to allow suspects to request opposite-sex strip searches, and that police forces should not create a conflicting regime.