When Is A Strip Search Legal In NSW?

Music festivals are high-energy and chaotic events with thousands of people in attendance – often involving alcohol and illicit drugs. For years, many young people in New South Wales were taken into tents and portable cubicles at music festivals for strip searches, told to remove their clothing, and made to squat, bend or lift body parts while police looked on. This process is obviously extremely demeaning, and forces people into extremely uncomfortable positions at the demand of authorities.

In September 2025, the Supreme Court of New South Wales finally put a legal label on that practice. In Meredith v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 1133 (“Meredith”), Justice Dina Yehia found the strip search of lead plaintiff Raya Meredith was unlawful, awarded her $93,000 in damages, and made findings about systemic failures across the NSW Police Force. These findings could flow through to more than 3,000 registered group members of her ‘class action’, which means that Ms Meredith was the representative of people that alleged they were unlawfully searched: when she won, they all won.

Crucially, the State is now appealing. The decision to do so is extremely significant as it provides an opportunity for the Court to expand on what police can and can’t do. It may curtail their privileges or empower them to do more.

What is a Strip Search?

Police powers to search people in New South Wales are derived from the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), commonly called LEPRA. This Act centrally governs their capacities and privileges.

A strip search is a search that involves removing clothing and a visual examination of the body (but not of any cavities), as well as those clothes. It is legally distinct from an ordinary “pat down” or general search. Because how this search clearly compromises a person’s privacy and dignity, it carries a much higher threshold.

Section 31 of LEPRA sets out two different tests depending on where the search happens:

• At a police station or place of detention: the officer must suspect on reasonable grounds that the strip search is necessary for the purposes of the search.
• Anywhere else (including a festival, a park, the side of the road, or a police van): the officer must suspect on reasonable grounds that the strip search is necessary for the purposes of the search and that the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances make the strip search necessary.

The test of ‘seriousness and urgency’ is the crucial limb, and it is a high bar. Like many laws, these terms are not explicitly defined and rely on interpretation in a situation’s own unique context and circumstances.

It is not enough for an officer to think a person might be carrying drugs. There must be something about the seriousness and the urgency of the situation that makes stripping someone naked necessary right there and then.

The term “necessity” in section 31 of LEPRA is held to mean “needed to be done”, “required”, or something “that cannot be dispensed with” (Meredith at [163)).

The term “seriousness and urgency” has not be explicitly judicially considered or defined in any legislative context. The court in Meredith referred to the Macquarie Dictionary, online ed, definition of “serious” includes “of grave aspect”, “weighty or important”, and “giving cause for apprehension; critical”.

The Macquarie Dictionary, online ed, definition of “urgent” includes, “pressing; compelling or requiring immediate action or attention; imperative” (Meredith at [164]).

“seriousness and urgency” of the circumstances is a threshold requirement for the exercise of other statutory search powers, those terms are not defined in LEPRA or in any other legislation in other Australian jurisdictions where the phrase appears, and no guidance is afforded as to what sort of circumstances will meet this additional threshold. While statistics cited of deaths and overdoses are matters of grave concern to the community reflecting the Government’s stance on harm minimisation initiatives, they are not by themselves sufficient to satisfy the requirement of “seriousness and urgency” (Meredith at [171)].

The requirements mandated by s31(b) LEPRA are not met by simply relying upon contextual matters such as the number of arrests, overdoses, or deaths at other music festivals on different occasions. It is not enough for an officer to merely rely on their general experience and understanding that patrons at music festivals may possess or conceal drugs on their bodies. (Meredith at [172]).

The Court in Meredith further held that “the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances may may a strip search necessary where immediate action is required to prevent harm to an individual. For example, there may be police intelligence about an individual’s propensity to possess a prohibited drug (for example, methylamphetamine or ecstasy) for the purposes of supply such that the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances justify a strip search. (Meredith at [174]).

The court in Meredith outlined guidance by setting out the principles that apply to the exercise of police powers under section 31(b) of LEPRA, namely the following (Meredith at [177]):

1. Firstly, strip searches unquestionably represent a significant invasion of privacy and are often a humiliating, degrading, and traumatic experience for individuals subjected to them.
2. Secondly, Parliament has seen fit to impose strict legal requirements and safeguards on police powers in conducting strip searches.
3. Thirdly, the powers conferred by s31(b) are not a mere extension of the power to search pursuant to s21 of LEPRA. a suspicion held on reasonable grounds that a person has in his or her possession or under his or her control a prohibited plant or drug is not sufficient to conduct a strip search. Even if an officer is satisfied that the threshold requirements for a general search have been satisfied, that office cannot strip search the person unless the officer also suspects on reasonable grounds that the strip search is necessary for the purposes of the search. This is a distinct and additional requirement. The officer must reasonably suspect that he or she needs to conduct a strip search, as opposed to just a general search, in order to achieve the objective of a particular search.
4. Fourthly, not only must a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the strip search is necessary for the purposes of the search, but also that the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances make the strip search necessary. this is an additional requirement that must be met before a strip search is rendered unlawful.
5. Fifthly, “necessary” as it appears under both limbs of s31(b), means “needed to be done”, “required”, or something “that cannot be dispensed with”. It is not enough that the officer suspects that it would be prudent to conduct a strip search of the person.
6. Sixthly, “urgency” requires that a matter is “pressing” or “requiring immediate action or attention”.

Further to this, the Court in Meredith held that while LEPRA is replete with ancillary powers, it does not provide express or ancillary powers to direct or force an individual to move his or her body or body parts to facilitate a visual inspection during a strip search. However, LEPRA expressly prohibits a search of a person’s cavities and an examination of the body by touch (s33(4). S33(4) LEPRA does not prohibit a police officer from touching a person in connection with a search. For example, a police officer may have cause to touch a person to get their attention or to guide them to a particular search area. Minor touching to for these purposes would not render a search unlawful. However, a police officer is expressly prohibited from conducting an examination by touch which would extend to moving or positioning a person’s body or body parts to facilitate an inspection or examination of that person during the strip search. (Meredith at [213])

A police officer may request that a person do certain things (move their body or touch their body parts to facilitate the inspection. A request is not, however, a direction, enforceable by the use of force. In the absence of an express or implied power to give directions (non-compliance of which authorises the officer to use force), a police officer does not have the power to direct or force a person to move their body or touch or otherwise interact with their body parts to facilitate an inspection of their genital area or breasts, other than a direction for the person to remove their clothes or a reasonable direction to make the search safe for the police officer. (Meredith at [219].

Even where a strip search is conducted, LEPRA imposes strict rules on how it is carried out:

• Police must preserve the person’s privacy and dignity as far as reasonably practicable (s 32).
• The search must be conducted in a private area, by an officer of the same sex, and not in the presence or view of a person of the opposite sex or anyone whose presence is not necessary (s 33).
• Police must not search body cavities or inspect the body by touch (s 33).
• Police must not remove more clothing, or visually inspect more of the body, than is reasonably necessary.
• A person aged 10 to 18, or a person with impaired intellectual functioning, must generally be searched in the presence of a parent, guardian or other appropriate support person (s 33(3)).
• A child under 10 must not be strip searched at all (s 34A).

Part 15 of LEPRA adds further standard requirements for police exercising their general powers: they must provide their name and place of duty, evidence they are an officer if not in uniform, and the reason for exercising the power.

What Happened in the Meredith Case

Raya Meredith was 27 when she attended Splendour in the Grass in Byron Bay in 2018. A drug detection dog sniffed in her direction and moved on. She was taken aside and strip searched.

She was directed to remove her clothing and, while naked, to remove a tampon. A male officer entered the area while she was undressed. No drugs and nothing else unlawful were found.

The class action was filed in July 2022 on behalf of everyone strip searched by police at NSW music festivals between 22 July 2016 and 22 July 2022. Shortly before the hearing began in May 2025, the State admitted that Meredith’s search had been unlawful. This struck at the core of the hearing, and so the court proceedings were cut from an estimated 20 days down to five.

Justice Yehia’s findings went well beyond the individual search, and she clearly outlined the upper limits of police powers to strip search. She found that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect Ms Meredith possessed a prohibited drug, and nothing in the material identified what made the search urgent or serious.

Police notebooks and database entries were, in the Court’s assessment, silent on what made the strip search necessary. This was an indicator that the statutory requirements had simply been overlooked.

Directing her to move her body and remove a tampon without lawful justification was described as egregious. To that end, police training, education and supervision on strip search powers were found to be wholly inadequate, amounting to a systemic failure.

Perhaps the most important development was the clear direction that indications by police drug dogs alone, or a mere suspicion of drug possession, cannot justify a strip search by police. This was groundbreaking, since police dogs were often the only cause of searches – just like Meredith’s. While dogs or a suspicion may certainly be relevant, they can only be a factor in the larger considerations of whether the search was serious and urgent in the circumstances.

Damages of $93,000 were awarded for assault, battery and false imprisonment, including $20,000 in aggravated damages. The Court also found exemplary damages were warranted for the systemic failures but deferred the amount until other group members’ claims are resolved.

Why Did the State Appeal?

The State of NSW sought leave to appeal, with the matter heard over two days in June 2026. Six questions were identified for the Court of Appeal, including:

1. Whether the power to strip search includes the power to force a person to bend over or otherwise move their body to facilitate the search.
2. Whether aggravated damages could and should have been awarded for the State’s conduct of its own defence.
3. Whether the compensatory damages involved double counting.
4. Whether an award of exemplary damages was justified at all.
5. Whether a limitation defence under s 5OC of the Limitation Act 1969 should apply (where the plaintiff waited too long to file their suit, so the proceedings are rendered invalid).
6. Whether certain answers to the common questions were incorrectly expressed.

The first ground has attracted the most attention. The State’s position is that Justice Yehia erred in finding police have no express power to use reasonable force to move a person’s body parts during a strip search. If that argument succeeds, it will meaningfully expand what officers can lawfully direct a person to do while undressed.

The remaining grounds are largely about money. Reducing or removing aggravated and exemplary damages, or narrowing the common question answers, would lower the value of every one of the 3,000-plus registered claims that rest on Meredith’s.

Criticism and Objections

Redfern Legal Centre and Slater and Gordon, who ran the case together, have urged the State to stop litigating and negotiate a resolution for the remaining group members, warning that continued resistance will only drive up the cost to taxpayers.

Many have doubted the merits of the power at all. Data obtained by Redfern Legal Centre and Harm Reduction Australia covering 2014 to 2023 recorded 82,471 strip searches, of which around 86.5% found no illicit substances. Further, the nebulous ‘seriousness and urgency’ requirements lend itself to clear exploitation by police, evidenced by Indigenous Australians constituting an extremely disproportionate number of searches.

Even if a strip search is rendered unlawful, the evidence obtained from it can still be used in court under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The immensely invasive procedure – together with its low effectiveness, capacity for misuse, and the court’s discretion to completely disregard unlawfully procured evidence – make many critics object to the scheme’s existence as a whole. Indeed, many say the answer to the underlying issue is not in affording police more powers, but through more holistic drug reforms through education and social outreach.