Reading that article, it seems pretty clear that Met. Police Officers chose to humiliate a fairly foolish woman and "teach her a lesson".
UK Police are often lambasted for 'death in custody' figures which include a substatial cohort of individuals who died as a result of self harm or consuming intoxicating substances. So conducting a strip search of someone who is either acting bizarrely and or is refusing to cooperate can have very little to do with trying to "teach someone a lesson" and is far more likely to revolve around police not wanting to face a disciplinary panels after a un searched or insufficiently searched person manages to kill or seriously harm themselves or another person.
So no I don't see that it's pretty clear they acted with intent to humiliate her.
However, the Police are not above the law and the judiciary should not condone that sort of misbehaviour..
The 'judiciary' haven't (yet) considered any misconduct or criminal allegations against the police as a whole or any individual officers hence why Ms Duff is seeking a judicial review. The case against the custody sergeant was reviewed by a disciplinary panel after the IOPC concluded (either on their own or after seeking CPS advice) that there was insufficient evidence pursue a criminal prosecution against any officer.
Sgt Kurtis Howard will doubtless get promoted regardless.
People who don't have disciplinary cases pending or found proven against them should be free to seek promotion or a new post. What a bizzare comment.
What is of more concern is that "Dr Duff was later charged with two counts of assaulting a police officer and one charge of obstructing a police officer, but was acquitted of all charges following a trial." This sounds like a deliberate, calculated attempt by the Met. Police to pervert the course of justice in order to further humiliate Dr. Duff.
Being found not guilty at court doesn't make an arrest unlawful or indicate the prosecution itself was vexatious or malicious.
Personally I think that trying to pass something to or receive something from somone being searched by a police officer having been warned to cease and desist should be enough to be convicted of obstruction. There aren't many details to assist with the assault allegations.