The New South Wales Police Force admitted on 2 April 2025 that a strip search performed upon a 16-year-old girl attending the Byron Bay Splendour in the Grass music festival almost seven years ago, was illegal, and it appears the agency has come clean on this, as it is the key example of an unlawful search involved in a strip search class action against state police, scheduled to commence on 5 May 2025.
Many in the community will remember this strip search from a plethora that became public knowledge, as it involved the attending officer ordering the teenager to remove her tampon during the 20 July 2018 search that followed an indication from a drug dog. And this was one of the most grievous strip search complaints amongst a variety of allegations made about the invasive procedure.
The class action statement of claim was lodged with the NSW Supreme Court on 21 July 2022, following the October 2018 launch of a high-profile inquiry into NSW police use of strip searches by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (the LECC), after it had received "specific complaints", which were no surprise considering the media storm around strip searches that then prevailed.
According to Rory Walsh, a class action lawyer for Slater and Gordon, which is the firm that's launched the case in conjunction with the Redfern Legal Centre, the NSW state has now admitted there was no lawful basis to the search, as the consent of the 15-year-old girl was never sought, while a male officer actually entered the strip search tent while the girl was naked.
In a 3 April statement, Walsh further explained that even though NSW police has admitted the search was unlawful, the subject still asserts it comprised of false imprisonment and assault, and the lawyer added that the state still seeks to maintain that the thousands of other searches performed upon those involved in the class action were completely above board.
The rules don't apply
The recent admission by the state and in turn, NSW police comes after the defendants in the strip search class action had spent the last two and a half years since the claim was filed asserting the search that involved unnecessarily subjecting this teenage girl to the humiliation of being made to remove her tampon, as well as having a male officer taking a gander, was all lawfully conducted.
As part of its overall strip search investigation, the LECC conducted separate investigations into strip search incidents, with this specific search being the subject of the Operation Brugge report that was released in May 2020. The sole NSW police watchdog found that the search was unlawful due to multiple reasons, including requiring the teen to remove all her clothes and then her tampon.
In her testimony to the LECC, the chief plaintiff said she didn't consume alcohol or drugs or carry any drugs on her during the multiple days of the festival. Yet, when she lined up for entry on 20 July, a sniffer dog accompanied by a police officer stopped beside her, and without introducing himself, the male officer ordered her to keep her hands visible and follow him to the search tents.
At no point, did officers tell the girl it was her right to have a parent present if she preferred, while the tent flap was left partially open so she could see male officers outside. The main search officer neither told her why removing her clothes was necessary. And when completely naked, the girl was ordered to squat, and she then described the officer as bending down and looking underneath.
The LECC Inquiry into NSW Police Force strip search practices report released in late 2020, outlined that over the inquiry period, the four years to June 2020, NSW police carried out 967,908 person searches, or pat downs, which led to 19,018 strip searches over that period. A strip search is only supposed to be carried out following an unsuccessful pat down, but this rule is broken at times.
In law but not in practice
The NSW police strip search protocols are contained under part 4 division 4 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), which is commonly referred to as the LEPRA.
The NSW state outlined on 2 April that the officers involved in the search "did not have reasonable grounds to suspect that the strip searches were necessary for the purposes of the search", which is required under section 21 of the LEPRA, and might be a controversial finding if state law enforcement has considered that a sniffer dog indication does not provide "a reasonable suspicion".
Further, NSW admits that the officers were acting without lawful authority, as they failed to ask the young woman's consent on strip searching her. Section 34A of the LEPRA permits officers to conduct a search of a person only after seeking and having gained their consent.
Other protocols breached in this case include the section 31 requirement that a strip search only be carried out in the field if "the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances make" it necessary.
The section 32 requirements to inform the person why the search is necessary, to ask for their cooperation, while attending officers must be the same sex as the subject and no genital area search must occur were all protocols that were breached.
And multiple breaches of section 33 of the LEPRA occurred, including the search being conducted in private, it being open to the opposite sex, while the attendance of a parent or guardian was not offered, more clothes than necessary were removed, and a search of a body cavity was technically performed via the squat.
Usually referred to as the 'squat and cough', this procedure is not permitted under the LEPRA, but anecdotally it's performed often.
A routine invasion upon the person
Redfern Legal Centre has been a key voice in the campaign against the introduction and escalating use of strip searches in our society. The sniffer dog operations that often precede strip searches in public and at events, were only introduced in NSW in 2002, with strip searches being recognised as an ever-growing accompaniment in 2014 to the point that they were becoming routine.
"For decades, people have been humiliated, intimidated and often left traumatised by these experiences of police officers abusing their powers," Redfern Legal Centre's senior police accountability lawyer Samantha Lee said earlier this month. "This class action is about securing justice for those individuals and ensuring we put an end to these invasive and unlawful practices."
The class action covers all NSW festivalgoers strip searched at an event over the period 2016 through to 2022. Hundreds of plaintiffs are, therefore, seeking just compensation, under circumstances at a time when many extreme searches were highlighted in the media, while critics assert that these were just the standouts in a situation involving mass illegal strip searches being performed.
The 2019 Redfern Legal Centre commissioned UNSW Report: Rethinking Strip Searches by NSW Police outlined that "strip searches were used 277 times in the 12 months to 30 November 2006 compared to 5,483 in the 12 months to 30 June 2018, an almost twentyfold increase in less than 12 years".
The push to reform or end strip searches was at its peak at the time of the report release, although the COVID pandemic, with its shutdown of society, saw the use of strip searches drop and the campaign quietened, and while the evidence is that searches have picked up again post-pandemic, the campaign against them has failed to gain quite the momentum of the past.
"This trial is an important step in holding NSW police accountable for the degrading strip searches that thousands of festivalgoers were subjected to," Lee said in concluding.
"This isn't just about music festivals. It's about the rights of everyone and the need for police to follow the law. Strip searches should never have been allowed to become routine practice."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
