HMICS Assurance review of Conduct and Discipline

24. Police Scotland sets clear expectations for officers and staff conduct through its Code of Ethics for policing in Scotland - Police Scotland, supported by its Professional Standards of Behaviour and Code of Conduct. These expectations are well established and understood across the organisation.

25. Our inspection found that these standards are consistently articulated and reflected in Police Scotland’s strategic documents and internal and external communications. Officers and staff reported that they understood what was expected of them and that professional standards were reinforced through routine interactions with line managers and senior leaders.

26. Despite this, concerns were raised at all levels regarding the extent to which the senior leadership team consistently exemplifies the expected standards of professional behaviour. These concerns were voiced repeatedly during interviews and represents an ongoing challenge that may undermine confidence in leadership behaviours if not addressed.

Training

27. While experienced officers and staff generally understood behavioural expectations, concerns were raised about the training provided to new officers and staff.

28. Induction training for police staff currently relies on a mix of mandatory and optional e-learning modules. Mandatory courses include Corruption Prevention, Data Protection and Introduction to Equality Diversity and Inclusion. There is one course entitled Police Scotland: Upholding Our Values, which has learning outcomes including details of the shared values (Integrity, Fairness, Respect) and upholding human rights (and how these translate into everyday actions), but this is a non-mandatory course and requires self-enrolment. Staff interviewed reported that online content was often difficult to absorb and lacked practical relevance to them as new employees.

29. Further training on the Code of Conduct and Standards of Professional Behaviour is at the discretion of local divisions and departments, leading to inconsistent delivery and limited evaluation and governance.

30. Benchmarking with GMP revealed a more structured approach: all new police staff must attend a face-to-face half-day session with the Police Staff Discipline Manager to discuss contractual obligations and expected professional standards, with attendance formally recorded on training records.

31. Probationary constables in Police Scotland receive two in-person training inputs from PSD during their initial training ‑ one in the first week and another in week 12. In our observations and subsequent focus groups we found that recruits demonstrated variable understanding of how to report wrongdoing, and that the quality of training was dependent on the individual delivering it.

Initial assessment of potential wrongdoing

32. Reports of potential wrongdoing by police officers or members of police staff may originate from a range of internal and external sources. These reports are assessed through different processes, depending on how they are received. Complaints concerning senior officers ‑ defined as those holding the rank of Assistant Chief Constable or above ‑ fall under the responsibility of the SPA, which assesses and manages these matters.

33. Complaints about the police submitted by members of the public are received by Police Scotland’s PSD and if the complaint relates to a senior officer, it is transferred to the SPA. (Members of the public can also make complaints relating to senior officers directly to the SPA.) PSD assesses whether a complaint meets the threshold to be considered as a conduct or disciplinary matter. (Our review did not examine complaints‑handling processes unless the matter was upheld and subsequently addressed as a conduct issue.)

34. Internal complaints of potential wrongdoing by officers and staff within Police Scotland (excluding senior officers) may be reported and assessed by line managers, PSD or HR. Some reports are classified as grievances and managed under grievance procedures; such cases fell outside the scope of this review.

35. Internal complaints of wrongdoing within Police Scotland can also be reported through the Integrity Line, a confidential mechanism that allows anonymous disclosures. Officers and staff can also use the externally provided Crimestoppers Integrity Line which was introduced in response to concerns raised in relation to distrust of the internal system. In addition, Police Scotland supports Crimestoppers’ Police Anti-Corruption and Abuse Reporting Service, which enables members of the public to report potential wrongdoing involving persons employed by Police Scotland.

36. When a report is received where there is an inference of on-duty criminality by police officers it must be referred to COPFS’s Criminal Allegations Against the Police Division (CAAPD). This referral can be made directly by a member of the public, through Police Scotland or in cases relating to senior officers by the SPA. Off-duty criminal allegations involving officers or staff are investigated and reported to the relevant prosecutor in the same way as cases involving members of the public. This review focused only on the conduct or disciplinary implications of such cases and not the criminal investigation.

37. Most reports of potential wrongdoing by officers ‑ and some reports relating to police staff ‑ are notified to PSD through the PSD NGAU. NGAU records and assesses these reports and determines whether further action is required. NGAU staff undertake additional checks in an attempt to verify the content of the reports and reach proportionate decisions. We found this process to be thorough; it was supported by peer discussion and strong supervisory oversight, which promoted consistency in decision making.

38. NGAU uses the intelligence database iBase to record reports, checks and decisions. Records are created on iBase linked to profiles of officers and staff and other individuals mentioned in the reports. We found no evidence of formal policies governing the creation, retention or deletion of records within iBase, and noted that no records have been weeded or removed since the system’s introduction in 2017.

39. Circumstances relating to police staff discipline are referred to HR. The correct process to do this is via the People Direct portal, which creates a record within the HR Connect system. However, we heard examples of line managers seeking informal advice directly from HR, bypassing People Direct. When no action was subsequently taken, this resulted in an absence of records documenting concerns raised or the rationale for decisions.

Officer and staff performance

40. The performance of officers and staff in Police Scotland is primarily managed by line managers, supported by HR. Conduct matters are the responsibility of line managers and PSD. We found evidence that line managers frequently refer low-level performance issues to NGAU for consideration as potential conduct matters. Whilst we noted that a significant proportion of cases referred to the National Conduct Unit (NCU) are referred to divisions for local intervention, this approach continues to result in a disproportionate use of the conduct framework and formal improvement action, which are not reflected within performance and development reviews (PDRs). This echoes concerns highlighted in Lady Angolini’s 2020 report that performance issues were escalated unnecessarily, rather than addressed through structured performance processes.

41. The Police Service of Scotland (Performance) Regulations 2014 are infrequently used in practice. Those we spoke to consistently reported that Police Scotland does not have an effective PDR process. The Police Service of Scotland (Performance) Regulations 2014 Guidance states:

“Every police officer should have some form of performance appraisal, or what is commonly referred to as a ‘performance and development review’ (PDR). The PDR should be the principal method by which the police officer’s performance and attendance is monitored and assessed. It is the responsibility of the line manager to set objectives for their staff and it is the responsibility of all police officers, with appropriate support from management, to ensure that they both understand and meet those objectives.” 

42. The current Police Scotland PDR process, MyCareer, is widely regarded as ineffective. Officers and staff view it largely as a tool for promotion, rather than a mechanism to support day-to-day performance. Numerous managers stated that the system does not support them in addressing underperformance and it is perceived as irrelevant for police staff. This lack of engagement is reflected in take-up: although the process is described as compulsory, only 47% of the workforce completed the process in the year ending 31 March 2025. This declined even further between April and September 2025, with fewer than 5% having completed it.

43. Guidance from ACAS emphasises the importance of setting clear performance standards and expectations and monitoring progress through regular review:

“Employers should also set standards of performance so that employees know what is expected of them. This is usually done as part of an organisation’s performance management which will involve agreeing objectives and reviewing performance on a regular basis.”

44. Similarly, the College of Policing highlights the value of a robust organisational PDR strategy, highlighting that an effective PDR process can strengthen wellbeing, encourage collaborative goal setting and support managers in identifying both strong performance and early signs of underperformance.

44. Police Scotland and staff associations consistently highlighted the complexity of The Police Service of Scotland (Performance) Regulations 2014 as a significant barrier to their effective use. The regulations were described as overly complex and time-consuming. In contrast, England and Wales have recently simplified their performance procedures with the introduction of The Police (Conduct, Performance and Complaints and Misconduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, reducing them from a three-stage to a two-stage process.

Whistleblowing

45. Whistleblowing, formally referred to as making a protected disclosure, involves reporting suspected illegal, unethical or harmful conduct within an organisation. It is a vital mechanism for upholding accountability, integrity and transparency across the public sector. The statutory framework for whistleblowing is set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996 as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). Notably, under PIDA, police officers benefit from the same statutory protections as employees, despite their unique employment status.

46. As public sector bodies, Police Scotland and the SPA are responsible for ensuring that protected disclosures are received, assessed and managed appropriately.

47. Police Scotland introduced its first formal whistleblowing policy and guidance in 2017, which was updated in 2019 and again in 2025. The current policy (Reporting wrongdoing (whistleblowing)) encourages officers and staff to speak up about wrongdoing. Training includes a mandatory e-learning module for officers and staff, but completion levels have been low.

48. We found that knowledge and understanding of Police Scotland’s whistleblowing processes among officers and staff remains limited. Many individuals interviewed expressed uncertainty about how to make a disclosure and how reports are assessed. Police Scotland has committed to improving awareness through renewed communication and a relaunch of the e-learning module; however, further work is needed to embed understanding across the organisation.

49. NGAU along with PSD senior management have the responsibility for assessing whether reports received within Police Scotland meet the criteria for protected disclosures under PIDA. Police Scotland reported that NGAU staff have received training from Protect (the whistleblowing advice organisation). However, we identified inconsistencies; some NGAU staff had not received any formal training and others reported that the training they had received was insufficient for the responsibilities they were expected to undertake.

50. The SPA’s 2022 Whistleblowing Policy does not clearly set out the process for concerns received involving senior officers. While it outlines procedures for concerns relating to the SPA Chief Executive and Board members, there is no guidance on how concerns relating to Police Scotland senior officers should be addressed if they meet the threshold of being considered a protected disclosure or if the person raising the concern is themselves a Senior Officer. We consider this an omission that requires clarity in order to provide confidence in whistleblowing arrangements for reports that contain concerns relating to senior officers.

51. We reviewed records of reports considered by NGAU as potential protected disclosures. In some cases, reports initially assessed by NGAU as potential protected disclosures were not ultimately treated as such, with the decision made by senior officers. Records did not consistently document the rationale for such decisions or identify the decision maker. This lack of transparency undermines confidence in the integrity of the process.

52. Under PIDA, individuals may raise concerns with a ‘prescribed person’ outwith their organisation. However, no independent policing oversight body with an investigative capacity in Scotland is currently listed as a prescribed person.[1] This contrasts with England and Wales, where the Independent Office for Police Conduct is prescribed for this purpose. We heard repeated concerns about the absence of an independent route for police officers and staff in Scotland, particularly when concerns may relate to senior officers.
    

53. The Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Act 2025 gives PIRC oversight and review of the investigation of whistleblowing complaints. Lady Elish Angiolini’s review recommended:

“The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner should be added to the list of prescribed persons in The Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014102 in order that people working in Police Scotland and in the Scottish Police Authority are able to raise their concerns with an independent third-party police oversight organisation.”

While acknowledging the increased oversight that the introduction of Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Act 2025 brings, we also remain supportive of Lady Elish’s position, which would enable officers and staff to disclose relevant information to an organisation outwith Police Scotland.

Police staff discipline

54. Police staff make up about 27% of Police Scotland’s workforce and perform a wide range of critical functions at all levels in the organisation. Many undertake challenging roles that expose them to violence, trauma and high-risk operational environments. As with police officers, police staff are subject to both public scrutiny and the expectation that they uphold high professional standards. Any behaviour by a police staff member that falls short of these expectations can significantly affect public trust and confidence.

55. Expectations for police staff are set out in Police Scotland’s Code of Conduct, and within individual contracts of employment. Performance and discipline matters are managed by line managers, divisional commanders or heads of department, supported by HR. HR provides guidance, procedural oversight and administrative support throughout formal processes.

56. Circumstances relating to alleged wrongdoing by a member of police staff are submitted to their senior management who, in consultation with HR, decide if the circumstances need to be investigated, and the level of the misconduct if the allegation is proved. In reviewing the paperwork recording this process, we found that 50% of cases contained insufficient rationale for the decisions made.

57. Where a report of wrongdoing is assessed as requiring formal investigation, an investigation manager is appointed, normally from within the staff member’s division or department. Investigation managers may be police officers or police staff. While they do not receive formal training for this role, they are well supported by HR advisors. However, many highlighted that conducting disciplinary investigations alongside their existing responsibilities created significant capacity pressures.

58. Police Scotland’s Staff Disciplinary Procedure states that disciplinary investigations should ideally be completed within 21 calendar days, with any subsequent disciplinary meeting normally held within 14 calendar days of the investigation’s conclusion. We found that these timelines were rarely achieved. In our case review, only 30% of investigations met the 21-day target, and only 18% of cases proceeding to a meeting were concluded within the expected timeframe. Individuals with experience of the process consistently reported that such delays had significant personal and professional impact.

59. We heard concerns that discipline investigations conducted by police officers risked being conducted in the style and standard of criminal investigations, focusing on proving allegations rather than establishing a balanced account. However, we found no evidence of systemic imbalance. Of the 23 discipline cases reviewed, investigations were generally proportionate and included inculpatory and exculpatory material.

60. Police Scotland has recently introduced a small cadre of dedicated police staff investigators to manage discipline and grievance casework, with an initial focus on complex and protracted matters. This development has been positively received, offering increased consistency, impartiality and professional expertise within investigations.

61. Where an allegation against a member of police staff is upheld following investigation, a disciplinary meeting is convened. The Staff Disciplinary Procedure states that the chair should be of a higher grade than the staff member subject to the proceedings and must have had no prior involvement in the investigation. For allegations assessed as gross misconduct, the meeting should be chaired by the relevant divisional commander or head of department.

62. We found that the divisional commanders or heads of departments were responsible for both reviewing the investigation findings and determining whether a case should be categorised as gross misconduct. This dual role risks perceptions of compromised independence when they subsequently chair the disciplinary meeting. Those who had chaired such meetings reported receiving no formal training; this is in contrast to police officer conduct chairs, who receive structured training and continuous professional development.

63. Stakeholders also raised concerns about the cessation of with-cause drug testing for police staff. Many police staff hold positions with access to sensitive information and intelligence, making them vulnerable to corruption risks. Drug misuse may increase vulnerability to coercion and pose risks to wellbeing. Police Scotland’s Substance Misuse Standard Operating Procedure permits with-cause drug testing for officers; however, previous attempts to apply the same approach to police staff were halted (following concerns raised by staff associations and the absence of formal consultation). There is currently no process to require a police staff member to provide a sample where sufficient intelligence exists to warrant this; we consider this to be a risk to the organisation.

64. Benchmarking identified that GMP uses with-cause drug testing for police staff. The requirement is included in job descriptions, and refusal to take a test carries the same consequences as a positive result.

65. Our inspection found a lack of robust governance and strategic oversight of police staff disciplinary matters. Police officer conduct issues are reported to and considered at a closed session of the Police Scotland People Board, before being submitted to the SPA’s Complaints and Conduct Committee. No equivalent reporting mechanism exists for police staff disciplinary matters. We consider that establishing such oversight within the SPA would be appropriate and would strengthen transparency, accountability and organisational assurance.

Police officer conduct

66. Misconduct by police officers up to and including the rank of chief superintendent is addressed under The Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2013 or The Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014 (depending on the date of the alleged behaviour). Stakeholders widely acknowledged that both the conduct regulations and associated statutory guidance would benefit from review. Scottish Government is currently undertaking consultation on potential reforms and we are contributing to this process. While not our intention to pre-empt or duplicate that consultation, we highlight specific areas emerging from this review where improvement is required.

67. Following initial assessment by the NGAU, reports of wrongdoing that meet the threshold for conduct and do not, prima facia, amount to criminal allegations are referred to PSD’s Conduct Unit for further consideration. Upon receipt, conduct case assistants collate and research the cases before presenting them at a Conduct Tracker meeting for discussion and determination of the appropriate route.

68. Discussions at the Conduct Tracker meeting focus on whether: the matter meets the threshold for management under conduct regulations; formal investigation is required; improvement action is appropriate; the case involves conduct or gross misconduct matters; or the matter should be referred back to divisions as a performance issue. Attendance typically includes two chief inspectors from the Conduct Unit, a conduct case assistant and the Fairplay Advisor (a member of police staff), and it is most commonly chaired by the conduct superintendent, who has final decision making authority.

69. While we heard concerns that, within a rank-based organisation, participants might defer to the superintendent’s position, we found that discussions were robust, with attendees offering challenge where appropriate. However, the superintendent retains ultimate responsibility for determining the progression of each case.

70. The role of the Fairplay Advisor is not to make decisions but to provide an alternative perspective, to encourage reflective consideration and challenge thinking where required. Their contribution is widely regarded as a positive development. Although there was some initial scepticism, those involved now value the additional scrutiny and independent viewpoint that the role brings. Benchmarking indicated that similar practice is in place within The Metropolitan Police, where a ‘critical friend’ sits on the conduct scrutiny panel.

71. We heard consistent concerns regarding the significant increase in workload within the PSD Conduct Unit, with no corresponding increase in staffing to manage rising demand. Police Scotland reported that, in the year to April 2025 the Conduct Unit experienced a marked rise in both gross misconduct (from 57 to 97 cases) and misconduct investigation cases (from 13 to 28) compared to the previous year. At 01 April 2025, 87 officers or staff were suspended and 113 were restricted compared with 67 suspensions and 83 restrictions on the same date in 2024.

72. Conduct investigating officers (IOs) are inspectors who carry out misconduct investigations. They work independently, without a dedicated team to support the investigative process. Where corroboration or additional assistance is required, IOs seek support from other conduct IOs (who also carry significant caseloads). We found that the conduct IOs were routinely managing far higher caseloads than IOs in other PSD units, with some responsible for up to nine open investigations, compared with an average of three in other areas.

73. Due to the volume of cases, the Conduct Unit has had to adopt a prioritisation model to manage workloads effectively. While this approach is necessary operationally, it results in unavoidable delays to the investigation of lower-priority cases. We heard that such delays have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of the officers who are the subject of those investigations, often prolonging uncertainty and stress.

74. During our review of conduct investigation files, we examined 107 concluded cases. We assessed whether investigations were proportionate and completed to an appropriate standard, whether key stages of the investigation were recorded accurately, and whether investigations were carried out within reasonable timescales. This analysis enabled us to evaluate consistency, quality and timeliness across the conduct process.

75. Across the cases reviewed, we found an absence of documented investigative objectives, rationale for decisions, and recorded supervisory oversight of the investigation. Although regulatory assessment documents demonstrated proportionate recommendations and considerations of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, the lack of consistent structured recording limited the ability to evidence investigative reasoning and decision making.

76. While anecdotal evidence indicated that cases were discussed at internal forums, there was no formalised record ‑ such as policy or decision logs ‑ capturing ongoing investigative direction or providing demonstrable supervisory oversight. In summary, we found that PSD conduct IOs undertook thorough and proportionate investigations; however, the recording mechanisms currently in place do not adequately evidence investigative activity or supervisory scrutiny. Notwithstanding this, we found that key regulatory documentation within the Centurion PSD secure database was consistently completed.

77. We identified several factors contributing to significant delays in progressing conduct cases. Many delays related to criminal allegations ‑ whether on or off duty ‑ where conduct proceedings were paused pending criminal investigation or prosecution. This is required to avoid prejudicing live criminal matters but can result in lengthy periods of uncertainty for subject officers.

78. Off‑duty criminal matters involving police officers are reported to the relevant prosecutor in the same manner as cases involving members of the public. Delays within the wider criminal justice system following the COVID pandemic are well documented and affect cases involving police officers to the same extent. These delays can affect the timely resumption and conclusion of conduct proceedings.

79. Following Lady Angiolini’s 2020 report, in 2021 COPFS instructed PIRC to investigate all on-duty allegations of assault or unlawful detention by officers or police staff. This ‑ combined with a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal that clarified the law of corroboration[1] ‑ saw the volume of assault investigations undertaken by PIRC rise by some 239% in the period from 1 January to March 2025, compared with the same period the year before.[2] This increased demand has contributed to extended investigation timescales in reporting outcomes to COPFS.

80. The case studies we reviewed illustrate the cumulative timescales involved when matters progress through multiple stages of assessment, investigation, reporting and review. These examples highlight the substantial duration for which officers may remain under investigation for relatively minor matters, reinforcing the need for a system‑wide examination of opportunities to reduce delays.

81. Police Scotland reported that, as of the end of Quarter 2 (2025/26), 92 police officers were suspended and a further 109 were subject to duty restrictions. In some cases, officers had remained suspended for several years. The impact this has on the individuals concerned is explored within the wellbeing section of this report, but the broader organisational implications ‑ including reduced operational capacity ‑ are considerable.

82. Given the multifaceted nature of these delays (involving multiple criminal justice partners), we consider that a co-ordinated, system‑wide review would be beneficial. Such a review should identify opportunities to expedite processes, reduce the duration of uncertainty for officers and staff, and strengthen the efficiency of the overall conduct system.

83. Once a criminal case has been concluded, PSD resumes conduct proceedings. Where the alleged behaviour amounts to gross misconduct, a misconduct hearing must be convened. In England and Wales, accelerated misconduct hearings can be held in cases where the evidence is incontrovertible and where (without further evidence) it is possible to prove gross misconduct, or where the officer admits that their behaviour constitutes gross misconduct. No equivalent provision currently exists in Scotland. We consider that such a mechanism would serve both the public interest and the interest of the affected officer, by facilitating a more timely conclusion to appropriate cases.

85. Similarly, for matters amounting to misconduct where the facts are undisputed, there is scope for an expedited process allowing for the prompt imposition of sanctions (up to and including a written warning). We consider that such a provision would be in the public interest, provided that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure that no officer feels pressured into accepting a sanction.

86. When assessing how to progress a case of misconduct, PSD and line managers may determine that improvement action is the appropriate sanction. Of the 417 conduct assessments undertaken by PSD in 2024/2025, 111 resulted in improvement action. The statutory guidance for The Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014 outlines the purpose of improvement action as addressing misconduct in a timely, proportionate and effective way that will: command the confidence of staff, officers, the police service and the public; identify any underlying causes or welfare considerations; and improve conduct and prevent a similar situation arising in the future. Even if the officer does not agree to the improvement action it can still be imposed by the manager, providing such action is reasonable and proportionate.

87. The guidance further states that a manager may draft improvement plans; these should be placed within an officer’s PDR and regularly reviewed, with comment made as to the improvement or otherwise of the officer. However, as noted earlier, the lack of an effective PDR process within Police Scotland has meant that improvement plans are not currently being recorded within PDRs. Consequently, we were unable to obtain assurance that improvement plans were being monitored and reviewed in accordance with statutory guidance.

88. Our benchmarking identified that the Reflective Practice Review Process introduced under The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 in England and Wales provides a more structured, learning-focused approach. The process requires the officer’s participation so that they can learn from their experiences and improve their practice in a supportive environment. We consider this a largely positive model and note that Lady Angiolini’s 2020 report recommended that Scottish Ministers should issue statutory guidance on such a review process at the earliest opportunity.

89. Probationary constables are expected to adhere to the Standards of Professional Behaviour and may be subject to the same misconduct procedures as other officers. They may also be managed under separate provisions of The Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013 (including Regulation 9 ‑ Discharge of probationer). We heard that challenges had been encountered in the application of Regulation 9, prompting increased management focus in this area and seeking legal advice to ensure that correct processes are being followed.

Senior officer conduct

90. The Police Service of Scotland (Senior Officers) (Conduct) Regulations 2013 sets out the legal framework for managing conduct matters involving serving senior officers (defined as those holding the ranks of Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable or Chief Constable). The SPA has produced guidance to support SPA members and staff involved in the application of these regulations and to provide senior officers with an overview of the procedures. The SPA is responsible for responding to and dealing promptly and effectively with unsatisfactory behaviour and complaints about senior officer conduct from members of the public or by colleagues.

91. Senior officers are entrusted with significant leadership responsibilities and are expected to act as role models for the organisation. They are required to maintain the Standards of Professional Behaviour at all times, demonstrating integrity, impartiality, professionalism and accountability in all aspects of their conduct.

92. The SPA is responsible for carrying out a preliminary assessment of any report of potential wrongdoing relating to senior officers. According to SPA guidance, such assessments should be based on a report prepared by the SPA complaints team and considered by the Complaints and Conduct Committee. This assessment is a critical early stage in determining whether the matter should progress under the statutory conduct regulations.

93. In our evidence to Lady Angiolini’s 2020 independent review, we stated that:

“HMICS does not believe that the SPA currently has the skills, experience or knowledge to undertake the assessment role for chief officer complaints to the standard required. A review of the SPA’s capability in this area is required and other options, such as immediate referral to the PIRC, should be considered.”

94. Lady Angiolini’s final report recommended that the statutory preliminary assessment function relating to senior officers should be transferred from the SPA to PIRC in order to: enhance independent scrutiny of allegations; remove any perception of familiarity; avoid any duplication of functions or associated delay; and give greater clarity about the process. We fully support this recommendation (although legislative change is required before it can be implemented).

95. Early in 2025, the SPA strengthened its capability by appointing two complaints and conduct facilitators with considerable experience in police conduct regulations (including within Police Scotland PSD). We consider this as a positive development that should enhance the quality and consistency of assessments relating to senior officers, providing a level of scrutiny more comparable to that applied to lower ranks by Police Scotland PSD.

96. Despite these improvements, we identified concerns during the inspection that reports of senior officers’ alleged wrongdoing received by the SPA were bypassing the complaints team and the newly appointed conduct facilitators, contrary to the SPA’s documented procedures. This issue was highlighted to the SPA chief executive and we understand that steps have since been taken to ensure that reports are now processed in line with the guidance.

97. We also found deficiencies in SPA record keeping practices relating to the initial assessment of senior officer wrongdoing. In some cases, records indicated that reports had been received, but with no corresponding documentation showing that an initial assessment had been carried out, or rationale for any decisions taken. In some instances, reports received directly by senior SPA officials lacked any accompanying record of deliberation or action. We heard that the SPA had, on occasion, sought advice from other senior officers within Police Scotland about how to progress concerns involving their peers. We consider this inappropriate and inconsistent with established guidance, and note that the Scottish Chief Police Officers Staff Association (SCPOSA) strongly opposes such involvement.

98. While observing the work of Police Scotland’s NGAU, we noted that complaints relating to potential wrongdoing by senior officers were escalated by NGAU staff to senior Police Scotland management for onward referral to the SPA, as required under the statutory framework. However, when comparing the records maintained by the SPA complaints team, we identified that a number of the reports escalated by NGAU to Police Scotland management had not been recorded as having been received by the SPA.

99. Our ability to fully assess the exact scale of missing referrals was constrained by the fact that Police Scotland insisted on redacting personal details from the senior officer-related records provided. This level of redaction did not apply to records concerning non-senior officers, where unredacted documentation was supplied. This lack of transparency and inconsistency in disclosure practices hindered our ability to verify the accuracy of reporting and assess compliance with statutory responsibilities.

100. Interviews with senior officers within Police Scotland further indicated that not all reports of potential wrongdoing relating to senior officers were being shared with the SPA, as required. This practice is inconsistent with the statutory framework and undermines the principles of independent oversight and accountability that the senior officer conduct process is intended to uphold.

101. Further to this, we heard evidence that NGAU staff had been instructed to create ‘blank’ records on iBase for certain reports of alleged wrongdoing received including those involving senior officers. When reports against senior officers are received, staff bring these to the attention of NGAU management and, on some occasions, are directed to create a blank file containing no record of the allegation ‑ solely to generate a unique iBase reference number. A separate report outlining the alleged wrongdoing is prepared using a Word document, which is then escalated to senior management.

102. In some instances, NGAU staff are subsequently instructed to transfer the content of the original report into the blank record, which is then linked to the relevant senior officer’s iBase record; however, in other cases, the records remain blank. We consider that this process undermines transparency, auditability and overall confidence in Police Scotland’s approach to allegations of wrongdoing concerning senior officers.

Wellbeing

103. The impact that discipline and conduct proceedings have on the wellbeing and mental health of officers and staff can be significant. Prolonged investigations often create sustained uncertainty for individuals and their families. We spoke to a number of officers and staff who were willing to share their experiences of being subject to such processes. Their candour in describing deeply personal and, at times, distressing experiences was invaluable to this inspection.

104. A substantial proportion of those interviewed raised concerns about the adequacy of wellbeing support while they were under investigation. Responsibility for providing such support sits with the individual’s division or department. However, we heard that support was inconsistent, with no training provided for those assigned as welfare contacts. We were told that welfare points of contact frequently changed and those appointed were sometimes viewed by the recipients as unsuitable, or lacking the necessary skills to provide effective support.

105. One officer described their experience as follows:

“Concern for my wellbeing from Police Scotland was non-existent, I barely had contact with my welfare point of contact, I had one five minute face to face chat with them the rest was via text and once via MS teams.”

106. In its self-evaluation, Police Scotland acknowledged that welfare officers often felt inadequately equipped to support those involved in conduct or disciplinary proceedings. It advised that work was underway to review the training and selection of welfare officers to ensure more consistent and appropriate support.

107. Suicide is a deeply complex issue and each individual’s circumstances are unique. Rather than stemming from a single event, it often develops from an accumulation of factors that overwhelm a person’s ability to cope.

108. Recent media reporting[1] has highlighted concerns regarding police officers and staff who have died by suicide while subject to conduct or disciplinary investigations. Police Scotland advised that, between 2013 and 2024, there had been 20 deaths by suicide among serving officers and staff, and that 20% of those individuals were subject to live conduct or disciplinary matters at the time of their deaths. Unverified figures from the Police Federation of England and Wales indicate that, between 2022 and 2024, approximately 58% of officers who died by suicide were under investigation at the time of their deaths.

109. We heard from a number of officers and staff who described experiencing severe mental health challenges, including suicidal ideation. Individuals reported feelings of isolation, fear of job loss, concerns about financial security, and an overarching sense of uncertainty. 

Examples included:

“It drove me to a really dark space at times and I felt very let down by Police Scotland” 

“I have had suicidal thoughts on multiple occasions through the last 4 years” 

“The threat of losing my job and my home caused me to have suicidal thoughts” 

“I felt that I might not recover from this process, I felt very isolated”

110. Death investigations in Scotland are conducted by COPFS on behalf of the Lord Advocate. The Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit (SFIU) is a specialist team in COPFS responsible for most of its death investigation work, including cases of suspected suicide. In practice, Police Scotland officers normally attend such deaths and complete an initial investigation, after which they report the circumstances to the SFIU. SFIU then determines if further inquiry is required.

111. We consider that, in the interest of transparency, Police Scotland should explicitly inform SFIU when a serving officer or member of police staff dies by suicide while subject to a live or recently concluded conduct or discipline investigation. This would enable SFIU to determine whether additional scrutiny or further proceedings are warranted.

Preventions and organisational learning

112. Police Scotland aims to operate as a learning organisation, but we found that structures supporting organisational learning for conduct and disciplinary matters were difficult to identify. Senior staff who should be responsible for producing training products to improve or prevent behaviours that may lead to misconduct acknowledged that there is currently no process to ensure trends identified by PSD inform training products.

113. During case reviews, we found no evidence that wider organisational learning was systematically considered when conduct or disciplinary cases were concluded. This represents a missed opportunity to identify recurring issues and to strengthen preventative measures across the organisation. We consider that all conduct and disciplinary cases should be reviewed to identify learning that may enhance policy, training or practice.

114. We also assessed how effectively Police Scotland uses the conduct data it holds to support preventative work. We found that PSD publishes a newsletter, The Standard, which highlights conduct outcomes and key issues; however, there was limited evidence of broader preventative activity informed by analytical insight. We identified a lack of analytical capacity to examine available data for prevention‑focused purposes. PSD stated that it was in the early stages of scoping a preventions processes called Proactive Support and Interventions Programme and we welcome this development.