Police complaints, investigations and misconduct - legislation: consultation

Section 3: Conduct and Standards

The Scottish Government welcomed Dame Elish Angiolini's suite of recommendations on police conduct. Her recommendations relate to a range of issues including conduct legislation and senior officer (constables holding the rank of Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable or Chief Constable) misconduct allegations. The final Angiolini report considered some of the tensions inherent in increasing openness and transparency while also ensuring that the misconduct system protects witnesses and the rights of the officers who are the subject of proceedings.

In considering any changes to the complaints and conduct process it is important to understand the impact on, and experiences of, police officers and members of the public, including victims and witnesses. Concerns have been raised that the current system does not take into full account the experience of victims and witnesses and how communication, language and approach can all have a significant impact, particularly on those who have been affected when things go wrong. While this section is focused on changes that are likely to require a legislative solution, Dame Elish made further recommendations which are unlikely to require legislation, intended to reduce barriers, increase accessibility and improve the overall experience of all those involved with the system, the majority of which are being taken forward by partners. The Scottish Government regularly reports on progress via its Thematic Progress Reports, the second of which was published in December 2021.

This section seeks views on proposals to meet the Angiolini report's recommendations on conduct and standards, either as written or with alternative or additional options to achieve the aims of a more open, transparent and fair process. Implementing these recommendations could involve changes allowing gross misconduct hearings to be held in public and/or to be allowed to continue even after an officer leaves the service through resignation or retirement. There are also proposals regarding the process for dealing with allegations of senior officer misconduct. A number of the options set out here relate to efficiency and effectiveness, including clarifying whether joint misconduct hearings can be held, how allegations against probationary police officers are dealt with and whether misconduct hearings can be accelerated where, for example, an officer admits to behaviour amounting to gross misconduct or there is assessed to be incontrovertible evidence. Additionally, there are a number of areas where the report touched on de-escalation, where minor or performance issues should be treated as such, as opposed to considering minor issues as automatically requiring the use of conduct processes. As well as setting out the Angiolini report's recommendations for statutory guidance on a Reflective Practice Review Process, this section sets out an additional proposal to review existing conduct regulations to bring them in line with current Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) statutory code of practice on discipline and grievance procedures.

In addition to the recommendations made in the report, Dame Elish highlighted a number of areas where, in her view, the regulations should be further reviewed, amended or clarified when considering any future changes. These include combining the senior and non-senior regulations into one set of regulations; amending the notice given to subject officers in advance of a misconduct hearing; and ensuring there is no gaps in provisions in relation to conduct occurring before Police Scotland came into being in 2013. Dame Elish also suggests that the regulations are amended to give clarity on situations where a senior officer is subject to misconduct allegations for an act or omission from a time when they were a non-senior officer.

3.1 Misconduct and gross misconduct proceedings

(52) 'Police officer gross misconduct hearings should be held in public. The Chair should have discretion to restrict attendance as appropriate but the aim should be to ensure that as much of a hearing is held in public as possible' (Recommendation 52, p. 464)

(53) 'In addition to the existing protections for witnesses, the Chair of the gross misconduct hearing should consider whether the evidence of any vulnerable witnesses should be heard in private and they should also be under an obligation to consider any other reasonable adjustments that they believe to be necessary to ensure the protection of such vulnerable witnesses. This may include the officer who is the subject of the proceedings' (Recommendation 53, pp. 464-5)

(58) 'The outcome of gross misconduct proceedings should be made public. The Chair's report, subject to any necessary redactions, should be published by the Scottish Police Authority on its website for a period of no less than 28 days' (Recommendation 58, p. 465)

The Angiolini report recommended a number of changes to gross misconduct procedures, where an officer has been accused of conduct that, if proven, amounts to a breach of the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour so severe that it would justify demotion in rank or dismissal for non-senior officers, or dismissal for senior officers. For non-senior officers, it is the designated Deputy Chief Constable who assesses whether, if proven, the alleged conduct would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct.^[28] In the case of allegations against senior officers, it is the SPA who would make that assessment,^[29] although it should be noted that the transfer of responsibility for this from SPA to the PIRC is discussed later in this paper at Section 3.5. If the assessment determines that the conduct, if proven, could amount to gross misconduct, then there will be a misconduct investigation. A misconduct report is produced by an Investigator. If, for non-senior officers, the Deputy Chief Constable, or for Senior Officers, the SPA, decides that there is evidence that there could be gross misconduct, then a misconduct hearing is set up to hear the evidence.

Gross misconduct hearings are currently held in private in Scotland (and in Northern Ireland). The Angiolini report proposed that they should be open to the public and the media in Scotland, as is currently the case in England and Wales, with restrictions to attendance subject to the discretion of the Chair. A further recommendation suggests that the outcome of the proceedings – whether an officer was found to have committed gross misconduct or not – would be made public. It is also proposed that the Chair of the gross misconduct proceedings be given additional powers to consider protections for vulnerable witnesses, including the officers themselves. For example, this could include reporting restrictions; the prevention of disclosure of key documents for the protection and welfare of witnesses;^[30] the possibility of testifying via video-link or from behind a screen if attending the hearing in person. It should be noted that complainers who are a member of the public are made aware of the outcome of proceedings (though this may not always be the case if the complainer is another officer) and that the hearing Chair does already have the discretion to consider and agree requests for complainers to attend (p. 323, para. 19.122). The hearing Chair can allow other people to attend the hearing, with the agreement of the constable involved.

In her 2017 review into Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody in England and Wales, which is referred to in the final report, Dame Elish noted that the official definitions of misconduct and gross misconduct were 'a breach of professional standards' and 'a breach of professional standards so serious that dismissal (being sacked) would be justified' respectively,^[31] as set out at the time in the Policing and Crime Bill (since enacted as the Policing and Crime Act 2017, where these definitions are not included). Similarly, in Scottish regulations, misconduct is currently defined as 'conduct which amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour' and gross misconduct as 'a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour so serious that demotion in rank or dismissal may be justified'.^[32] While Dame Elish recognised that a degree of discretion would always be required on the part of investigators to determine the level of culpability based on the facts and circumstances of each unique case (2017 report, p. 174, para. 13.31), she also recommended that in the interests of transparency and public confidence 'it would be useful to have greater specification about the criteria used by investigators to reach their decisions' (2017 report, p. 175, para. 13.32).

The report notes, in relation to Article 2 cases involving deaths in police custody in particular, that once clear criteria for deciding what constitutes misconduct and gross misconduct are made transparent, dismissal must follow a finding of gross misconduct unless there are exceptional circumstances (which should, in Article 2 case, be made clear to the bereaved family) which justifies dismissal not being the sanction that is imposed. In her final report, Dame Elish recommended that the Scottish Government consider whether recommendations from her earlier report could or should be applied in Scotland. An option to make the misconduct processes more open, which could be considered in addition to the other proposals set out here, would therefore be to require the publication of the criteria used to determine whether an action amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct.

It is important to note that actions amounting to gross misconduct are not criminal proceedings – they are not a criminal trial and proof is to the civil standard – "on the balance of probabilities" as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt", which is the case in criminal trials. In most professions it would be highly unusual that employment proceedings would be made public. In other professions, for example in medicine or law, employment matters would be dealt with in private while professional registration matters would often be held in public. For example, doctors are registered with and licensed by the General Medical Council, and the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service hold public registration hearings and make and publish decisions if there is an allegation that a doctor's fitness to practise is impaired (through, for example, misconduct or a criminal conviction). It should also be noted that gross misconduct proceedings cannot be used to determine whether an officer has committed a criminal offence.

There are high expectations of the police in Scotland, and the police's ability to fulfil their functions and undertake their duties effectively depends on the relationship the police maintain with the public. The concept of "policing by consent", so central to policing in Scotland, relies on the respect and approval of the public. The Angiolini report highlighted the high public interest in scrutiny of the police and police misconduct issues, and argued that 'high public office carries with it legitimate and well understood expectations of public scrutiny, accountability and transparency' (p. 256, para. 15.10). She notes she has 'weighed the benefits of conducting gross misconduct hearings in public with the benefits of conducting them in private [and has] concluded that the balance lies in favour of opening them up to the public and media' (p. 324, para. 19.125).

As previously noted in Section 3, Dame Elish suggested others areas of the regulations which should be considered for amendment or review. In relation to misconduct proceedings, these included amending the definition of "misconduct" and "misconduct allegation"; updating the regulations to allow subject officers to make written representations at any point during investigations; and defining the stages of misconduct pre-hearings in the regulations.

Further details can be found in Chapter 19 of the final report and pages 173-175 (paras. 13.26-13.32) of the 2017 review into Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody.

Questions:

A. Should police officer gross misconduct hearings be held in public?

Yes
No
Don't know

B. Please explain your answer using the free text box below.

C. If gross misconduct hearings are to be held in public, should these hearings be for officers of all ranks who are being investigated for gross misconduct, or senior officers only?

All ranks of officers
Senior officers only
Don't know

D. If gross misconduct hearings are to be heard in public, should the Chair of a hearing have discretion to restrict attendance as they see appropriate?

Yes
No
Don't know

E. If you answered "Yes" to question D, under which circumstances should attendance be restricted? Please provide details using the free text box below.

F. To what extent do you agree or disagree that in addition to the existing protections for witnesses, the Chair of the gross misconduct hearing should consider whether the evidence of any vulnerable witnesses should be heard in private to ensure the protection of such vulnerable witnesses (this may include the officer who is the subject of the proceedings)?

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

G. In addition to the existing protections for witnesses, to what extent do you agree or disagree that the Chair of the gross misconduct hearing should be obliged to consider any other reasonable adjustments that they believe to be necessary to ensure the protection of such vulnerable witnesses (this may include the officer who is the subject of the proceedings)?

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

H. If you agree the Chair of gross misconduct hearings should be obliged to consider other reasonable adjustments to ensure protection of vulnerable witnesses, what reasonable adjustments should be considered? Please provide details using the free text box below.

I. To what extent do you agree or disagree the outcome of gross misconduct proceedings should be made public?

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

J. If you do not agree that the outcome of gross misconduct hearings should be made public, is there more that Police Scotland (for non-senior officers) or the relevant body responsible in future for holding misconduct hearings for senior officers, can do within current practices to increase transparency around gross misconduct proceedings?

K. To what extent do you agree or disagree that an illustrative, publicly available list of matters likely to be considered by a gross misconduct hearing would be useful?

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

L. If a publicly available list of matters to be considered by a gross misconduct hearing were to be available who should be responsible for its publication?

M. If a publicly available list of matters to be considered by a gross misconduct hearing were to be available, should a finding of gross misconduct always result in dismissal, unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify an alternative sanction?

Yes
No
Don't know

N. If the outcome of gross misconduct proceedings is to be made public, should the Chair's report, subject to any necessary redactions, be published by the Scottish Police Authority on its website?

Yes
No
Don't know

O. If the Chair's report is to be published by the Scottish Police Authority on its website as per question 3.1N, what type of details, if any, should be redacted? Please provide details using the free text box below.

P. If the outcome of gross misconduct hearings is to be published by the Scottish Police Authority on its website, how long should the report be available online?

Made available online for at least 28 days
Made available online for a different time period (please specify)
Don't know

Q. Dame Elish highlighted a number of areas where amendments to the conduct regulations should be considered or regulations could be clarified. Do you agree that these further recommendations should be considered as policy is further developed?

Yes
No
Don't know

R. If you have any further views to share in relation to changes to the regulations that should be considered as part of this work, please outline them in the text box below.

(27) 'Gross misconduct hearings for all ranks should have 1) an independent legally qualified chair appointed by the Lord President, 2) an independent lay member appointed by the Lord President and 3) a policing member. This means in senior officer cases the role of Chair should transfer from the SPA to the independent legally qualified person. The policing member in senior officer cases should be appointed by the Lord President; in all other cases the policing member should be appointed by the Chief Constable' (Recommendation 27, p. 459)

The Angiolini report recommends that both misconduct and gross misconduct hearings against senior officers should be considered by an independent, legally chaired panel, with the Chair and members appointed by the Lord President (p. 185, para. 12.31; p. 186, para. 12.32; p. 220, para. 14.60; p. 197, para. 12.79). The report recommends that panel members should consist of an independent lay person and a senior expert in policing. Dame Elish recommends that the independent lay person be someone capable of understanding complex disciplinary issues and that the senior expert in policing has not previously worked with the subject officer. According to further recommendations in the report, the legally chaired independent panel would follow on from a preliminary assessment of senior officer misconduct allegations undertaken by PIRC (as opposed to the SPA as is currently the case – the preliminary assessment aspect of this process is treated in Section 3.5 of this consultation) and an independent investigation by the PIRC before referral to the panel (p. 185-6, para. 12.31).

In the case of non-senior officers, the report recommends that legally qualified chairs, appointed by the Lord President, should also be employed for all gross misconduct hearings (p. 191, para. 12.52). The Angiolini report further recommends that gross misconduct hearings for non-senior officers should include an independent lay person appointed by the Lord President and a police officer of at least two ranks above the subject officer appointed by the Chief Constable (p. 191, paras. 12.52-12.56). Having legally qualified chairs will in particular help to assuage concerns that Chief Superintendents (the most senior of the non-senior ranks) are likely to have some previous interaction with the majority of the pool of senior officers from which the Chair can currently be drawn, given that the Chair must be an officer of at least two ranks above the subject officer (p. 192, para. 12.58).^[33] For the purposes of gathering views on whether a specific set of requirements should be set out for misconduct hearings for Chief Superintendents due to the issue outlined above, the questions below separate Chief Superintendents from both non-senior ranks (of which they are the most senior rank) and senior officers. In the Angiolini report, Dame Elish's suggestion is that the policing member for Chief Superintendent hearings should be a senior officer from a different police force, a retired senior officer or an Inspector of Constabulary (p. 191, para. 12.55).

The Angiolini report does not discuss the impact legally qualified chairs might have on the approach to, or the tone of, hearings particularly if subject officers feel compelled to engage a lawyer rather than being supported by staff associations. An alternative or additional option, as proposed in the questions below, could be to engage a qualified HR professional to chair (or as one of the members of) the hearing.

Questions:

S. From which category of person should the appointment of the Chair of any misconduct hearing which is considering allegations against senior officers be made? Please select one option only.

An independent legally qualified person

A member of the SPA
HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary
A senior expert in policing (other than HM Chief Inspector)
An independent lay person
An HR professional
Other (please specify)

T. In addition to an appointed Chair (as per question 3.1S above), should any misconduct hearing which is considering allegations against senior officers include members made up of any of the following categories of person? Please select all options that apply.

An independent legally qualified person
A member of the SPA
HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary
A senior expert in policing (other than HM Chief Inspector)
An independent lay person
An HR professional
Other (please specify)

U. Please explain your answers to questions 3.1S-3.1T using the free text box below.

V. From which category of person should the appointment of the Chair of any gross misconduct hearing which is considering allegations against an officer of the rank of Chief Superintendent be made? Please select one option only.

An independent legally qualified person
A member of the SPA
A senior expert in policing
An independent lay person
An HR professional
Other (please specify)

W. In addition to an appointed Chair, should any gross misconduct hearing which is considering allegations against an officer of the rank of Chief Superintendent include members made up of any of the following categories of person? Please select all options that apply.

An independent legally qualified person
A member of the SPA
A senior expert in policing
A senior officer from another police service
A retired senior officer
An independent lay person
An HR professional
Other (please specify)

X. Please explain your answers to questions 3.1V-W above using the free text box below.

Y. From which category of person should the appointment of the Chair of any gross misconduct hearing which is considering allegations against non-senior officers below the rank of Chief Superintendent be made? Please select one option only.

An independent legally qualified person
A member of the SPA
A serving officer of the rank of superintendent or above who is at least two ranks higher than the subject officer
An independent lay person
An HR professional
Other (please specify)

Z. In addition to an appointed Chair (as per question 3.1Y above), should a gross misconduct hearing which is considering allegations against non-senior officers below the rank of Chief Superintendent include members made up of any of the following categories of person? Please select all options that apply.

An independent legally qualified person
A member of the SPA
A serving officer of the rank of superintendent or above who is at least two ranks higher than the subject officer
An independent lay person
An HR professional
Other (please specify)

AA. Please explain your answers to questions 3.1Y-Z above using the free text box below.

BB. Do you agree that the Lord President should appoint the Chair of a misconduct hearing which is considering allegations against officers? Please select all options that apply.

Yes, for senior officers
Yes, for Chief Superintendents
Yes, for non-senior officers below the rank of Chief Superintendent
No, not for any police officer
Don't know

CC. Do you agree that the Lord President should appoint the panel of a misconduct hearing which is considering allegations against officers? Please select all options that apply.

Yes, for senior officers
Yes, for Chief Superintendents
Yes, for non-senior officers below the rank of Chief Superintendent
No, not for any police officer
Don't know

DD. Please explain your answers to questions 3.1BB and CC above using the free text box below.

EE. Do you have any further comments you wish to make in relation to questions regarding misconduct and gross misconduct proceedings?

3.2 Continuation of gross misconduct proceedings

(22) 'The Scottish Government should develop proposals for primary legislation that would allow, from the point of enactment, gross misconduct proceedings in respect of any police officer or former police officer to continue, or commence, after the individual ceases to hold the office of constable' (Recommendation 22, p. 458)

(23) 'In gross misconduct cases, for all ranks, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner should determine if it is reasonable and proportionate to pursue disciplinary proceedings in relation to former police officers after the twelve month period, taking into account the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and the public interest' (Recommendation 23, pp. 458-9)

(24) 'The Scottish Government should engage with the UK Government with a view to adopting Police Barred and Advisory Lists, to learn from experience south of the border and to ensure compatibility and reciprocal arrangements across jurisdictions.' (Recommendation 24, p. 459)

The Angiolini report stated that there is strong public interest in dealing with gross misconduct even after officers leave the service (whether that be through resignation or retirement). She stated that while there can be no sanction against former officers who would have been dismissed had they still been serving, it is right and proper that processes can be followed to a conclusion in exceptional and serious cases which are likely to do damage to public confidence in policing.

There is an argument for ensuring that gross misconduct proceedings reach their conclusion even if an officer leaves the force. It should be noted that continuing proceedings does not necessarily mean that a sanction can be applied, since the ultimate sanction – the removal from post of a police officer who is not fit to serve – has already been achieved through the officer's resignation or retirement. It should be noted that while those who are currently serving officers can be supported by staff associations during gross misconduct proceedings, a former officer would not have access to this support. In cases where gross misconduct came to light 12 months after the officer leaves the service, the report suggests that it should be the PIRC who determines whether it is reasonable and proportionate to pursue disciplinary proceedings.

It should also be noted that this power would be "enabling" – that is to say that it would allow gross misconduct proceedings to continue where Police Scotland (for non-senior officers and former officers for up to 12 months after they have resigned or retired) or PIRC (for senior officers, and with discretion to pursue proceedings for all officers if the allegations came to light more than 12 months after the officer has left the service) deem this necessary and appropriate, and would not requirethe proceedings to continue.

The Angiolini report also recommended that the Scottish Government should adopt the use of Barred and Advisory Lists to strengthen vetting processes and prevent any police officer with a finding of gross misconduct from being appointed by another police service, force or other policing body. For England and Wales, these are maintained by the College of Policing, the professional body for the police in England and Wales. In England and Wales, where an officer resigns or retires during gross misconduct proceedings those proceedings can continue until a conclusion is reached. Where there is a finding of gross misconduct the officer's name will be added to the Police Barred List which prevents them from being appointed by another police service, force or other policing body in England and Wales. The Advisory List is a vetting tool for policing employers which contains information about individuals who have resigned or retired during an investigation into a matter that could have resulted in their dismissal, or who leave before such an allegation comes to light. Individuals remain on the list until the investigation has concluded and an outcome has been determined.

Police Scotland can currently access the Barred List which is publicly available to search and should routinely check this as part of their vetting process. They do not have access to the Advisory List. This means that currently, Police Scotland is unable to access the full Barred List or the Advisory List, and UK legislation governing the lists does not currently allow for any dismissals from Police Scotland to be added to the them. Dame Elish recommends that adopting the use of a Barred and Advisory list should ideally include cross-border and UK-wide application. This would involve working with the UK Government to discuss possible changes to Westminster legislation or establishing a Scottish version of the Barred and Advisory Lists and entering into information-sharing agreements with other jurisdictions. The Police Service of Northern Ireland, as well as the States of Jersey Police, the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police and Border Force already have information sharing agreements with the College of Policing in relation to the England and Wales Barred and Advisory lists, which can be utilised as part of each service's vetting procedures.

Further details can be found in Chapter 11 of the final report.

Questions:

A. Should it be possible to continue, or begin, gross misconduct proceedings against former officers? Please select one option only.

Yes, for all ranks of police officers
Yes, but only for senior officers
Yes, but only for rank of Chief Superintendent and above
No, not for any police officer
Don't Know

B. If it is to be possible to continue, or begin, gross misconduct proceedings against former officers, under what circumstances should this be done? Please provide details using the free text box below.

C. If it is possible to continue, or begin, gross misconduct proceedings after an officer has left the service, who should be responsible for making that decision (to continue or begin proceedings)? Please select all options that apply.

Chief Constable
The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC)
The Scottish Police Authority (SPA)
Other (please specify)
Don't know

D. Please explain your answer using the free text box below.

E. In deciding whether to continue with, or begin, gross misconduct proceedings after an officer has left the service, should the relevant authority be required to take into account the wishes of a complainer?

Yes
No
Don't know

F. Do you think any of the following changes to gross misconduct hearings would have altered how you answered the above questions (3.2A-E)? Please select all options that apply.

Yes, if gross misconduct hearings were to be held in public
Yes, if gross misconduct hearings were to be chaired by a legally qualified chair
No
Don't know

G. Please explain your answer using the free text box below.

H. Should it be possible for gross misconduct proceedings to be taken forward where allegations came to the attention of the relevant authority (as per question 3.2.C above) more than 12 months after the person ceased to be an officer, and the following conditions are met:

a) the case is serious and exceptional,

b) the case is likely to damage public confidence in policing, and

c) the PIRC has determined disciplinary proceedings reasonable and proportionate?

Yes
No
Don't know

I. Please explain your answer to the question above.

J. If gross misconduct proceedings are to begin more than 12 months after a person ceased to be an officer, should these proceedings be for officers of all ranks? Please select one option only.

Yes, for all ranks of police officers
Yes, but only for senior officers
Yes, but only for rank of Chief Superintendent and above
No, not for any police officer
Don't Know

K. Should the Scottish Government work with the UK Government to adopt Barred and Advisory lists and other potential models?

Yes, by using the Barred and Advisory Lists model
Yes, by adopting other measures (please specify)
No
Don't know

L. Do you have any further comments you wish to make in relation to continuation of gross misconduct proceedings?

3.3 Appeals against determinations of gross misconduct

(28) 'There should be one route of appeal against a determination of a gross misconduct hearing or the disciplinary action to be taken and that should be to a Police Appeals Tribunal, as at present. This recommendation is subject to the Police Appeals Tribunals being transferred into the [Scottish Tribunals]' (Recommendation 28, pp. 459-60)

The Police Appeals Tribunal is currently the final stage of appeal against the determination made at gross misconduct hearing. For senior officers, an appeal can be made to the Police Appeals Tribunal if a decision made by a misconduct hearing panel results in their dismissal.^[34]

The Police Appeals Tribunal may either confirm or replace the decision being appealed.

Internally, under current regulations, it is for the Scottish Police Authority to convene an appeal hearing panel to consider an appeal for senior officers, and a person assigned by the Deputy Chief Constable to do so for appeal hearings for non-senior officers.^[35] As Dame Elish recommends the transfer of senior officer misconduct functions from the SPA, she also recommends removing this internal appeal stage to ensure the independence of the appeals process.

The Scottish Government is restructuring Scotland's tribunals to make sure they are more user-friendly and to promote consistency across tribunals, particularly in their practises and procedures. As part of this transfer programme, the Police Appeals Tribunal is to be transferred to the Scottish Tribunals. This work is underway, and, subject to that transfer being effected, the Angiolini report recommends that in the case of senior officers, there should be only one route of appeal and that should be to a Police Appeals Tribunal.

Further details can be found on page 187 (paras. 12.35-12.37) of the final report.

Questions:

A. Do you agree that, given the transfer of the Police Appeals Tribunal to the Scottish Tribunals, senior officer conduct regulations should be revised to ensure that for all gross misconduct hearings where there has been a finding of gross misconduct, there should be only one route of appeal i.e. the Police Appeals Tribunal?

Yes, for senior officer regulations
No, the regulations should not be revised

B. Do you agree that the same route of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal should be included in regulations for findings of misconduct against senior officers or should the appeal process be managed by the independent legally chaired panel?

Yes, to the Police Appeals Tribunal
No, by the independent legally chaired panel
Don't know

C. Please explain your answer using the free text box below.

3.4 Accelerated misconduct hearings

(51) 'Provision equivalent to that in England and Wales for accelerated misconduct hearings should be included in Scottish conduct regulations for all ranks of constable to deal with circumstances where the evidence is incontrovertible and where that evidence means that without further evidence it is possible to prove gross misconduct, or where the subject officer admits to their behaviour being gross misconduct' (Recommendation 51, p. 464)

The Angiolini report recommends that it should be possible to hold accelerated gross misconduct hearings for all ranks of officer in Scotland, in certain circumstances, similar to processes in place in England and Wales for accelerated misconduct hearings. The legislative framework in England and Wales makes provision for misconduct hearings to be accelerated when certain conditions are met – firstly, that there is enough evidence for the authority deciding on the case to establish that, on the balance of probabilities, the officer's actions amounted to gross misconduct; and secondly, that it is in the public interest for the case to be treated as a special case and for the officer concerned to be removed from their functions without delay.

While the Angiolini report cites CCTV as a possible source of incontrovertible evidence (p. 318, para. 19.104), it does not clarify if this is deemed to be incontrovertible after having considered that evidence in its full context. Neither does the report make clear who should have responsibility for determining whether evidence can be deemed to be incontrovertible.

Giving the Chairing Panel, in the case of senior officers, or the Chairing Constable, in the case of non-senior officers, the ability to dismiss an officer who is convicted of criminal conduct which would amount to gross misconduct would also strengthen their ability to remove without delay individuals who have behaved in a way which demonstrates they are not fit to be a police officer. There would be two key conditions, firstly that the action, if proven, would amount to gross misconduct (not all criminal offences are likely to amount to gross misconduct, for example some road traffic or regulatory offences would have to be evaluated to consider whether they are serious enough to constitute gross misconduct). Secondly, the evidence would have to be deemed sufficient. This second condition would likely already be met should the individual have received a criminal conviction, given that gross misconduct hearings are not criminal trials and proof is to the civil standard. In a criminal trial, the standard of proof is higher – "beyond reasonable doubt" as opposed to "on the balance of probabilities" as in the civil standard, and so a criminal conviction would almost certainly mean that the evidence is sufficient for a finding of gross misconduct. If these two conditions are met then it would be considered that the individual should be dismissed without delay.

Further details can be found on pages 322-323 (paras. 19.119-19.120) of the final report.

Questions:

A. Should accelerated gross misconduct hearings be able to take place when the evidence is incontrovertible and can prove gross misconduct without any additional evidence being needed?

Yes
No
Don't know

B. Should accelerated gross misconduct hearings be able to take place to deal with circumstances where the subject officer admits to their behaviour being gross misconduct?

Yes
No
Don't know

C. If accelerated gross misconduct hearings are to be a possibility, in cases involving non-senior officers, who should decide what evidence is considered to be incontrovertible? Please select one option only.

Police Scotland's Professional Standards Department
Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) responsible for conduct matters
Deputy Chief Constable (DCC) responsible for conduct matters
Chief Constable
Other (please specify)
Don't know

D. If accelerated gross misconduct hearings are to be a possibility, in cases involving senior officers, who should decide what evidence is considered to be incontrovertible? Please select one option only.

Chief Constable
The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
The Scottish Police Authority
Other (please specify)
Don't know

E. What type of evidence would you expect to be considered incontrovertible? Please provide details using the free text box below.

F. If accelerated gross misconduct hearings are to be a possibility, in cases involving non-senior officers, who should decide if expedited proceedings would be appropriate in each circumstance? Please select one option only.

Police Scotland's Professional Standards Department
ACC responsible for conduct matters
DCC responsible for conduct matters
Chief Constable
Other (please specify)
Don't know

G. If accelerated gross misconduct hearings are to be a possibility, in cases involving senior officers, who should decide if expedited proceedings would be appropriate in each circumstance? Please select one option only.

Chief Constable
The PIRC
The SPA
Other (please specify)
Don't know

H. Should an investigation into allegations take place in circumstances where evidence is deemed to be incontrovertible, but the subject officer does not admit to their behaviour being gross misconduct?

Yes
No
Don't know

I. Should the Scottish Ministers consider (either in legislation or guidance) applying indicative timescales to the investigation of misconduct allegations?

Yes
No
Don't know

J. Where an officer is convicted of a criminal offence which would constitute gross misconduct, should the Chairing Panel or Chairing Constable be able to move to dismiss that officer immediately, without separate misconduct proceedings?

Yes
No
Don't know

3.5 Senior officer misconduct cases

(25) 'The statutory preliminary assessment function should be transferred from the SPA to the 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 around the process. The preliminary assessment should be carried out by the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner' (Recommendation 25, p. 459)

(39) 'The PIRC should take on responsibility for the key stages of the senior officer misconduct proceedings (both misconduct and gross misconduct) i.e. the functions of receipt of complaints/allegations, preliminary assessment, referral to COPFS of criminal allegations and, where appropriate, referral to an independent legally chaired panel' (Recommendation 39, p. 462)

(PR19) 'Any process for preliminary assessment of senior officer misconduct should require the relevant authority both to take into account whether the allegation is made anonymously, is specific in time and location, or whether it appears, on the face of the allegation, to be either vexatious or malicious. Scottish Government should consider amending the conduct regulations to reflect this process' (Preliminary Recommendation 19, pp. 474-5 of the final report)

(40) 'The PIRC should be given a new statutory function and power to present a case at a senior officer gross misconduct hearing where the case would be determined by a three-person panel comprising an independent legally qualified chair, a lay person and an expert in senior policing' (Recommendation 40, p. 462)

As noted in Section 3.1 of this consultation regarding the composition of gross misconduct panels, the Angiolini report recommended that a number of the stages of senior officer misconduct proceedings be transferred to the PIRC in the interests of increasing the structural independence of investigations into senior officers' conduct. It has been broadly recognised that while the SPA undertakes its current functions with integrity and independence, the small number of senior officers in Scotland means that prior professional contact between the subject officer and the SPA board members is likely.^[36] In addition, if PIRC were to take on the key stages of senior officer misconduct proceedings, Dame Elish recommends existing legislation is amended to make clear that the PIRC is the appropriate authority for senior officer complaints, while the SPA would be the appropriate authority for the SPA and its staff.

The transfer of these functions could involve PIRC taking receipt of complaints about senior officers and undertaking the preliminary assessment which is currently performed by the SPA before referral to the PIRC for investigation.^[37] The Angiolini report recommends that the preliminary assessment of misconduct cases for senior officers be carried out by senior PIRC staff but decided on by the Commissioner or one of the two deputies proposed, discussed in this document in Section 2.1. It would also take into account further factors including any potentially vexatious basis for the complaints, as discussed in Section 3.6 of this document. Following preliminary assessment by PIRC, criminal allegations would continue to be referred to COPFS. For misconduct allegations, if investigation by PIRC determines there is a case to answer, they would be referred to an independent panel which, should the recommendations discussed in Section 3.1 of this document be implemented, would be led by a legally qualified chair. A panel led by this legally qualified chair could then determine whether a preliminary hearing should be held by the panel to identify any evidence that is not in dispute and any other matters that can be agreed or resolved prior to the formal hearing.

The preliminary assessment is currently defined in regulations as; 'whether the conduct which is the subject matter of the misconduct allegation would, if that conduct were proved, amount to (a) misconduct, (b) gross misconduct, or (c) neither'.^[38] The Angiolini report suggests that three factors should be taken into consideration when deciding whether the matter should be investigated further: whether the allegation is made (i) anonymously, (ii) is sufficiently specific in time and location, and (iii) either malicious or vexatious. Although the recommendation from the preliminary report (PR19) relates to the preliminary assessment of senior officer misconduct only, the final report (p. 183-184, paras. 12.28-12.29) states this should apply to all officers.

The report notes that while there are reasons for which anonymous complaints may be made, including fear of reprisal, the response 'needs to be proportionate based on an assessment of the reliability and credibility of the information' (p. 120, para. 7.134), and the seriousness of the complaint should also be taken into account. While all complaints must be treated with an open mind, cases where complaints are frivolous (about a matter that would not require an investigation), vexatious (for example, unreasonable behaviour) or malicious (vindictive or intended purely to cause harm to the subject), should be considered carefully at this preliminary assessment stage for the purposes of proportionality.

A further proposed change is that PIRC would then present the case to the panel during the formal hearing where appropriate.

Further details on proposed changes to the powers of the PIRC in relation to senior officers can be found on pages 218-222 (paras. 14.54-14.65) of the final report. Details on the preliminary assessment of alleged misconduct can be found on pages 181-184 (paras. 12.18-12.29) of the final report and pages 59-62 (paras. 170-180) of the preliminary report.

Questions:

A. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the preliminary assessment of misconduct allegations made against senior police officers should be carried out by the PIRC?

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

B. If the PIRC is to carry out the preliminary assessment of misconduct allegations made against senior police officers, should the preliminary assessment of an allegation or complaint be decided on by the Commissioner or their Deputy?

Yes
No
Don't know

C. Should the PIRC take on responsibility for key aspects of misconduct and gross misconduct proceedings for senior officers? Please select all options that apply.

Yes, for receipt of complaints and allegations, where appropriate, referral to an independent legally chaired panel.
Yes, for preliminary assessment
Yes, for referral to COPFS of criminal allegations
Yes, for referral to an independent legally chaired panel where appropriate if there is a disciplinary hearing subsequent to referral to COPFS
No
Don't know

D. When the relevant body is deciding whether an investigation into an allegation against a senior officer or non-senior officer should be carried out, should that body take into consideration whether an allegation is made anonymously? Please select one option only.

Yes, for senior officers only
Yes, for non-senior officers only
Yes, for both senior officers and non-senior officers
No, not for any police officers
Don't know

E. When the relevant body is deciding whether an investigation into an allegation against a senior officer or non-senior officer should be carried out, should that body take into consideration whether an allegation is sufficiently specific in time and location? Please select one option only.

Yes, for senior officers only
Yes, for non-senior officers only
Yes, for both senior officers and non-senior officers
No, not for any police officers
Don't know

F. When the relevant body is deciding whether an investigation into an allegation against a senior officer or non-senior officer should be undertaken, should that body take into consideration whether an allegation is malicious? Please select one option only.

Yes, for senior officers only
Yes, for non-senior officers only
Yes, for both senior officers and non-senior officers
No, not for any police officers
Don't know

G. When the relevant body is deciding whether an investigation into an allegation against a senior officer or non-senior officer should be undertaken, should that body take into consideration whether an allegation is vexatious? Please select one option only.

Yes, for senior officers
Yes, for non-senior officers
No, not for any police officers
Don't know

H. Please explain how, in your view, it can be ensured that genuine complaints are not misrepresented as "vexatious" or "malicious".

I. Do you agree that the PIRC should be able to present a case at a senior officer gross misconduct hearing?

Yes
No
Don't know

J. Do you agree that the independent legally chaired panel should have the capacity to hold a preliminary hearing to identify any evidence that is not in dispute and can be agreed, as well as any other matters that can be resolved ahead of the formal hearing?

Yes
No
Don't know

K. Do you have any further comments you wish to make in relation to senior officer misconduct cases?

(41) 'The PIRC should have the power to recommend suspension of a senior officer if she or he believes that not suspending the officer may prejudice an effective misconduct investigation. The PIRC should provide supporting reasons when they make such a recommendation to the SPA that a senior officer should be suspended' (Recommendation 41, p. 462)

The SPA currently has remit over decisions relating to the suspension of senior officers. Given that PIRC has jurisdiction over the investigation of senior officer misconduct, the Angiolini report proposed that the PIRC obtains the power to recommend suspension of a senior officer to the SPA if, in the view of the PIRC, there is a risk that not suspending them may prejudice the investigation. Any final decision on suspension would remain to be a responsibility for the SPA.

Further details can be found on pages 326-327 (paras. 19.131-19.133) of the final report.

Questions:

L. Should the PIRC have the ability to recommend the suspension of a senior officer?

Yes
No
Don't know

M. If the PIRC is to be able to recommend the suspension of a senior officer, to what extent do you agree or disagree that suspension should only be recommended in circumstances when not suspending the officer may prejudice an effective misconduct investigation?

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

N. Please explain your answer using the free text box below.

O. If the PIRC is to be able to recommend the suspension of a senior officer, should the PIRC be required to provide supporting reasons when they make such a recommendation to the SPA?

Yes
No
Don't know

3.6 Vexatious complainers

(PR13) 'The Scottish Government should consider the case for amending the legislation to include a provision to deal with vexatious complainers' (Preliminary Recommendation 13, p. 473 of final report)

Section 3.5 of this consultation discusses consideration of the potential vexatious or malicious basis of some complaints during the preliminary assessment process. The Angiolini report recommends that the Scottish Government should consider the strengthening of the legislation to deal with vexatious or malicious complainers. The report recommended that in order to deal effectively with vexatious or malicious complaints, there should be a policy in place to ensure consistency in handling allegations and to prevent reputational damage as a result of false allegations. Equally, the system needs to remain open to members of the public with genuine complaints, even where they have previously been deemed to behave in a vexatious manner regarding other issues.

Since publication of the preliminary report, Police Scotland, PIRC and the SPA have been working collaboratively to align their processes and policies for dealing with vexatious and malicious complaints. A revised SPA Complaints Policy and Unacceptable, Persistent or Unreasonable Actions by Complainers Policy was approved for publication at its Complaints and Conduct Committee in August 2021.

It is important to note that there are existing penalties for those who are proven to have knowingly made a false complaint or allegation about a police officer or member of staff. They may be prosecuted for wasting police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice and may also be liable to civil action.

Further details can be found on pages 117-120 (paras. 7.121-7.132) of the final report and pages 33-34 (paras. 80-82) of the preliminary report.

Questions:

A. Given the work that is already underway to align processes and policies on vexatious complainers across policing bodies, should the Scottish Government also consider amending legislation to deal with vexatious complainers?

Yes
No
Don't know

B. What safeguards should be put in place in relation to vexatious complainers to ensure anyone complaining to policing bodies in Scotland is treated appropriately and fairly? Please provide details using the free text box below.

3.7 Additional statutory provisions relating to conduct

(54) 'The 2012 Act should be amended to confer on Scottish Ministers a power to issue statutory guidance in respect of conduct and a duty to consult on any such guidance, and confer a duty on policing bodies to have regard to any such guidance. Scottish Ministers should use that power at the earliest opportunity to issue guidance in respect of a new Reflective Practice Review Process. That guidance should build on the spirit of existing Scottish guidance and take into account any valuable elements of English and Welsh best practice' (Recommendation 54, p. 465)

The Angiolini report recommended that amendments to the 2012 Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act should allow the Scottish Ministers to issue statutory guidance in respect of conduct (with a corresponding duty to consult on any such guidance) and that a duty should be placed on policing bodies to have regard to any such guidance.

The report notes that over-reliance on conduct processes, as opposed to performance processes, were seen by some who gave evidence to the Review as a disproportionate escalation (p. 106, para. 7.81). The Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014,^[39] contain provisions to transfer from misconduct proceedings to the performance process at various stages to allow consideration of action under the performance procedures in order that the police officer may learn and improve.

The Angiolini report's recommendation is that the Scottish Ministers should use the power conferred to issue guidance in respect of a new Reflective Practice Review Process. The intention of a Reflective Practice Review Process would be that where a matter does not reach the threshold for disciplinary proceedings and the officer's behaviour constitutes practice requiring improvement (defined as 'underperformance or conduct not amounting to misconduct or gross misconduct, which falls short of the expectations of the public and the police service as set out in the Code of Ethics' (p. 316, para. 19.94)), then low-level performance issues or mistakes can be addressed through a line-management or performance conversation between the officer and the reviewer, which is not a hearing where parties are formally represented (p. 316, para. 19.96).

Further details can be found on pages 315-317 (paras. 19.92-19.98) of the final report.

Questions:

A. Should the Scottish Ministers be able to issue statutory guidance in respect of conduct?

Yes
No
Don't know

B. If the Scottish Ministers are to be able to issue statutory guidance, should they be required to consult on any such guidance?

Yes
No
Don't know

C. If the Scottish Ministers are to be able to issue statutory guidance, then should a duty to have regard to any such guidance be placed on policing bodies?

Yes
No
Don't know

D. If the Scottish Ministers are to be able to issue statutory guidance, then should any such guidance be used to bring forward guidance in respect of a new Reflective Practice Review Process?

Yes
No
Don't know

E. If statutory guidance on conduct is to be prepared, should the Scottish Ministers consider using this to make clear where matters relate to conduct and where they do not (i.e. where they may relate to performance or grievance matters instead)?

Yes
No
Don't know

F. Do you have any further comments you wish to make in relation to the issuing of statutory guidance?

Review of regulations regarding disciplinary and grievance procedures (additional proposal)

Employment tribunals in other sectors in Scotland will generally take into account the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) statutory code of practice on discipline and grievance procedures,^[40] which provides basic practical guidance to employers, employees and their representatives and sets out principles for handling disciplinary and grievance situations in the workplace. A review of the regulations relating to police conduct in Scotland could be undertaken to ensure that processes are closely aligned with this code of practice.

Questions:

G. To what extent do you agree or disagree that regulations governing police conduct in Scotland should be reviewed in order that consideration can be given to bringing them into line with Acas' latest code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures?

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

(55) 'Subject to safeguards needed to protect the rights of each individual officer, the regulations should make provision for the possibility of joint misconduct proceedings to deal with any number of officers, including senior officers' (Recommendation 55, p. 465)

The guidance on the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014 (which govern officers of federated ranks)^[41] provides for joint hearings where more than one officer has to appear in relation to a matter stemming from the same incident. Paragraph 6.4 of the guidance provides that it would normally be appropriate for the subject officers to attend the same proceedings so that the alleged misconduct can be considered in context. A subject officer may request separate proceedings if they can demonstrate that joint proceedings would lead to unfairness and it is for the person conducting the proceedings to decide whether to hold separate proceedings. The Angiolini report recommends that, subject to safeguards needed to protect the rights of each individual officer, legislation should allow for the possibility of joint misconduct proceedings to deal with any number of officers, including senior officers.

It is important to note that senior officers are subject to a different set of conduct regulations than non-senior officers. This means that consideration would need to be given to the regulations to which the proceedings would be subject should the officers concerned be from both senior and non-senior ranks. As part of this consultation (see Section 3.5 above), views are being sought on different procedures for senior officers in relation to public hearings and the composition of gross misconduct panels, including legally qualified chairs.

Questions:

H. Should it be possible for joint misconduct proceedings to be held to deal with any number or rank of officers?

Yes
No
Don't know

I. If joint misconduct proceedings are to be possible when appropriate as per question 3.7H, what should be taken into account in making the decision to hold joint proceedings? Please provide details using the free text box below.

J. If joint misconduct proceedings are to possible when appropriate, what safeguards should be put in place to protect the rights of each individual officer? Please provide details using the free text box below.

K. If joint misconduct proceedings are to be possible when appropriate, who should make the decision as to whether joint proceedings are appropriate in each circumstance? Please select one option only.

Police Scotland's Professional Standards Division
Assistant Chief Constable responsible for conduct matters
Deputy Chief Constable responsible for conduct matters
Chief Constable
Other (please specify)
Don't know

L. Do you think any of the following changes to gross misconduct hearings would have altered how you answered the above questions (3.7H-3.7K)?

Yes, if gross misconduct hearings were to be held in public for senior officers only
Yes, if gross misconduct hearings for senior officers were to be chaired by a legally qualified chair
No
Don't know

M. Please explain your answer using the free text box below.

(56) 'The regulations governing probation (the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013) should be amended so that a fair and speedy consideration of any allegation of misconduct can be dealt with during the probation period' (Recommendation 56, p. 465)

The Angiolini report stated that the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013, which govern probation, should be amended so that a fair and speedy consideration of any allegation of misconduct can be dealt with during the probation period. A police officer's probation period lasts for two years. Currently, where allegations relating to conduct are raised, Police Scotland follow the same conduct regulations as for any other police officer. There is an argument that the intention of the probation period is to assess whether the probationary officer is suitable to be a constable, and that this assessment should take into account their conduct. Amending the regulations to reflect this would allow Police Scotland to consider the officer's suitability to serve as a police officer in light of their conduct during the probation period.

This has the potential to expedite the process of dismissing a probationary constable who is considered to be unsuitable to serve as a police officer as a result of their conduct.

Questions:

N. Given that the speed of an investigation and its perceived fairness and rigour can be considered to trade off against one another, to what extent do you agree or disagree that any allegation of misconduct should be dealt with more speedily during an officer's probation period?

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

O. If allegations of misconduct are to be dealt with during an officer's probation period, how should these be dealt with? Please select one option only.

Through the conduct regulations which all other officers are subject to when allegations of misconduct are made
Through the regulations which govern probation
Other (please specify)
Don't know

P. Would your answer to either N or O be different if timescales relating to the investigation stages of misconduct allegations were set out in legislation to say how quickly an investigation should be conducted (as discussed at question 3.4I)?

Yes
No
Don't know

Q. Please explain your answer using the free text box below.

(57) 'A statutory suspension condition in England and Wales that temporary redeployment to alternative duties or an alternative location should have been considered as an alternative to suspension should be replicated in Scottish regulations in relation to all ranks of constable. Provision should also be made for regular review of the suspension of an officer' (Recommendation 57, p. 465)

The Angiolini report recommended that a statutory suspension condition should be added to regulations governing suspension for both senior and non-senior officers. This would replicate a condition in England and Wales that temporary redeployment to alternative duties, or an alternative location, should have been considered as an alternative to suspension before an officer can be suspended. There is already provision in both senior and non-senior officer regulations that officers cannot be suspended unless one of two conditions are met: in summary, firstly that not suspending the officer may prejudice a misconduct or criminal investigation, and secondly that it is in the public interest for the officer to be suspended.

Further details can be found on pages 326-327 (paras. 19.131-19.133) of the final report.

Questions:

R. Should there be a condition which must be met before an officer is suspended? Please select all options that apply.

Yes, that temporary redeployment to alternative duties has been considered
Yes, that a temporary alternative location to operate from has been considered
Yes, other (please specify)
No
Don't know

S. If a condition must be met before it is recommended that an officer is suspended, which officers should this relate to?

All ranks of officers
Senior officers only
Don't know

T. Should all suspended officers have the terms of their suspensions reviewed regularly? Please select one option only.

Yes, suspension should be reviewed every 4 weeks
Yes, suspension should be reviewed on another time frame (please specify)
No
Don't know

3.8 Special constables conduct regulations

'[…] a revision of the Police Service of Scotland (Special Constables) Regulations 2013 in respect of special constable misconduct to align them with The Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014. The intention would be to ensure consistency in assessment and investigation of misconduct by special constables and regular police officers' (Misc. recommendation, p. 453)

Special constables are part-time, voluntary officers with the same powers as regular police officers. The regulations covering special constables are different from those covering regular police officers.^[42]

The Angiolini report concludes that the Police Service of Scotland (Special Constables) Regulations 2013 in relation to misconduct should be revised to align them with the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014. This follows a submission from Police Scotland to the review which proposed this approach with the intention to ensure consistency in the assessment and investigation of misconduct issues.

Further details can be found on page 453 (para. 30.91) of the final report.

Questions:

A. Do you agree that conduct regulations for special constables should be revised to bring them in line with those for regular police officers?

Yes
No
Don't know

B. Do you have any further comments you wish to make in relation to changes to conduct regulations for special constables?