Scotland Police Misconduct Rules from 26 November 2026

On 29 September 2026, Scottish Ministers made the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Amendment Regulations 2026. The instrument was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 1 October 2026 and comes into force on 26 November 2026. According to the Scottish Statutory Instrument published on legislation.gov.uk, this is not a minor tidy-up. It rewrites large parts of the way Police Scotland misconduct cases are investigated, heard and explained to the public. If you are reading this as a student, teacher or simply someone trying to follow how public bodies are held to account, the key point is straightforward. These rules shape what happens when an officer is accused of misconduct or gross misconduct, how quickly a case can move, what support witnesses can get, and how much of the outcome the public gets to see.

One of the quietly important changes is scope. From 26 November 2026, the 2014 conduct rules will also apply to special constables for conduct happening on or after that date. Older cases do not suddenly switch systems: the regulations keep transitional rules so conduct that happened before 26 November 2026 can still be handled under the earlier framework. The instrument also rewrites a long list of definitions. It adds terms such as accelerated misconduct hearing, misconduct pre-hearing, presenting officer, First-tier Tribunal and trauma-informed practice. That matters because legal definitions are where procedure starts. The regulations also tighten the wording around misconduct allegations, making clear that even informal information can trigger action if it reasonably suggests behaviour serious enough for disciplinary action.

Here is the headline reform. Scotland is creating accelerated misconduct hearings for cases where the deputy chief constable decides two special conditions are met: there is enough written or documentary evidence, on the balance of probabilities, to establish gross misconduct, and the public interest requires the constable to stop holding office without delay. That sounds severe, and it is. Put simply, balance of probabilities means the decision-maker thinks something is more likely than not. An accelerated hearing can end with a final written warning, demotion, dismissal with notice or dismissal without notice. But speed does not remove all safeguards. The constable must be told the case against them, can choose a solicitor or advocate, can object to the person appointed to hear the case, can submit written arguments and documents, and can appeal afterwards. The hearing must normally be fixed for between 10 and 15 working days after notice is given, which tells you just how compressed this route can be.

Most cases will still go through the ordinary misconduct route, and that process is getting more structured. If an investigator changes view about how serious the conduct is, or about the conduct being examined, they must send a further notice of investigation. If new evidence suggests the case may belong in the accelerated route, or may not amount to misconduct at all, the investigator must report that early to the deputy chief constable. The regulations also create misconduct pre-hearings and a presenting officer. In practice, that means more formal case management before the full hearing starts: witness lists can be settled, disclosure problems can be argued, dates can be fixed and legal points can be dealt with earlier. The person running the proceedings is told to keep them fair, transparent and timely, with the first day normally within 100 working days of the misconduct form being treated as given to the constable unless the interests of justice require more time.

Another change sits at the point before any hearing even begins. A senior officer cannot jump straight to suspension without first considering whether temporary redeployment to other duties or another location would do the job. Suspension is now tied more clearly to two questions: could the investigation be harmed if the officer stayed in post, or does the public interest require suspension? The rules on representation have been sharpened too. A police representative or legal representative can support the constable, but they cannot answer questions on the constable’s behalf during interviews, meetings or hearings. At the same time, the right to legal representation is widened so it clearly covers misconduct pre-hearings, accelerated misconduct hearings and appeals linked to those hearings. What this means is that the regulations are trying to balance personal support with direct accountability.

One of the most significant additions is the formal use of trauma-informed practice. The regulations say decision-makers should recognise that a person may have experienced trauma, understand how that can affect evidence, and adapt the process to avoid causing further harm where possible. That is a notable shift in tone as well as procedure. It tells us the system is being asked to think not only about efficiency, but also about how people experience the process. In practice, that opens the door to measures such as live television links, screens, supporters being present, private evidence and extra help for children or other witnesses who need it. The same part of the instrument also sets rules for joint investigations when allegations involve both a constable and a senior officer. Those investigations can share lines of enquiry and witness material, but they must keep separate legal responsibilities, separate decision-making and no joint interview of the constable and senior officer. That is an important safeguard against convenience swallowing fairness.

Transparency is another major theme. If the deputy chief constable decides there is no case to answer in a matter that began with a complaint, the complainant must usually be told in writing what was decided, what happens next and why. People who made complaints must also be told about the date, time and location of misconduct proceedings and, in many cases, allowed to attend as observers. The regulations go further after the hearing ends. For both ordinary misconduct proceedings and accelerated hearings, a written report must be prepared and a version must usually be published on the Police Service of Scotland website for 28 days. Information can still be withheld, redacted or anonymised, but only for stated reasons such as protecting criminal proceedings, preventing harm, respecting personal data or serving the public interest. The explanatory note on legislation.gov.uk makes clear that publication is now built into the process rather than treated as an optional extra.

The list of disciplinary outcomes changes too. Verbal warnings are removed. A written warning will normally stay in effect for 18 months, while a final written warning will normally last 2 years and can later be extended up to 5 years. In accelerated hearings, if gross misconduct is found, the available outcomes run from a final written warning through to dismissal without notice. Linked changes have also been made to appeal rules in the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland so the new accelerated process can be challenged through the existing appeal structure. If you want the bigger picture, it is this: Scotland is moving towards a police misconduct system that is faster, more managed and more public-facing, while still trying to preserve appeal rights and procedural fairness. The real test will come after 26 November 2026. We will need to watch how often accelerated hearings are used, how much information is published in practice, and whether trauma-informed rules and observer rights make the process feel more credible to the people most affected by it.