Scottish Ministers have made the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Amendment Regulations 2026, SSI 2026/276, under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012. The instrument was made on 29 September 2026, laid before the Scottish Parliament on 1 October 2026 and comes into force on 26 November 2026, following the statutory consultation required by section 54(2) of the 2012 Act. The measure substantially revises the 2014 conduct framework for Police Scotland. According to the explanatory note, the main changes are a new accelerated misconduct hearing route, tighter case management, wider publication duties, clearer complainant notification rules and an express requirement to work in a trauma-informed way.
The amendment instrument recasts several core definitions. It introduces new terms including 'accelerated misconduct hearing', 'misconduct pre-hearing', 'presenting officer', 'Commissioner' for the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, 'First-tier Tribunal' and 'trauma-informed practice'. It also broadens 'misconduct allegation' so that a formal complaint, informal report or other information can all trigger the regime where it is reasonable to infer that conduct may amount to misconduct or gross misconduct. From 26 November 2026, the 2014 Conduct Regulations will also apply to the conduct of special constables occurring on or after that date. The drafting also tightens the meaning of misconduct by linking it to behaviour serious enough to justify disciplinary action, and brings data protection language directly into the conduct code through the defined terms 'personal data' and 'data subject'.
SSI 2026/276 creates a new framework for joint investigations where the same facts concern both a constable and a senior officer. A joint process is only available where the deputy chief constable and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner each decide that it is appropriate, and they must record a written joint investigation strategy covering scope, witness handling, information-sharing and safeguarding. The instrument is careful not to collapse the two statutory systems into one. It expressly preserves separate functions, forbids a joint investigation report and bars any joint interview of a constable and a senior officer. Joint interviews are limited to witnesses, must respect trauma-informed practice and procedural fairness, and will normally be audio recorded or reduced to a single agreed written record. Investigators may share interview records, witness statements, documents, reports and other material reasonably required for each investigation.
The investigation stage is also made more responsive. If the investigator later changes view on the seriousness of the alleged conduct, or on the conduct actually in issue, a further notice of investigation must be issued. If emerging evidence suggests that the case may satisfy the new special conditions for an accelerated hearing, the investigator must send an early report to the deputy chief constable even before the investigation is complete. The same applies where new material indicates that the conduct would amount to neither misconduct nor gross misconduct, triggering a fresh assessment and, where appropriate, withdrawal of the original notice. Suspension rules are tightened at the same time. Before suspending a constable, the senior constable must consider temporary redeployment to other duties or another location and decide that it is not appropriate in the circumstances. Suspension is then confined to cases where an effective criminal or misconduct investigation may be prejudiced, or where the public interest requires suspension given the nature of the allegation and other relevant factors. Review functions are also recast so that they sit with the deputy chief constable, another deputy chief constable or an assistant chief constable.
The revised regulations move ordinary misconduct proceedings towards a more managed hearing model. A new misconduct pre-hearing can be used to settle directions on witnesses, disclosure, legal points, timing and venue. The person conducting the proceedings must decide within six working days of receiving the papers whether a pre-hearing is needed, and the first day of the substantive proceedings should usually fall within 100 working days of the misconduct form being treated as served, unless an extension is justified in the interests of justice. The deputy chief constable must also appoint a presenting officer with the skills, knowledge and expertise to present the case, and that appointment must not create a reasonable concern about impartiality. The instrument also clarifies service rules, including deemed dates of receipt for documents sent in person, electronically or by post, and allows proceedings to continue even if the constable does not provide the required written response. Legal representation is expressly available at misconduct pre-hearings, misconduct hearings, accelerated misconduct hearings and relevant appeals, but neither a solicitor, advocate nor police representative may answer questions on the constable’s behalf.
Witness handling is one of the clearest shifts in the new text. The regulations define trauma-informed practice as an approach that recognises trauma, understands how it may affect evidence and adapts process to reduce the risk of re-traumatisation while enabling effective participation. That definition now feeds directly into both joint investigations and hearing procedure. In ordinary misconduct proceedings, the person conducting the case may permit live television links, screens, supporters, private evidence and other measures where they are needed for effective participation and do not create a significant risk of unfairness. Children may be supported by a parent or guardian. Written statements may be admitted instead of oral evidence where fairness is preserved, and a constable may join by live link or other suitable remote means on reasonable grounds, including welfare grounds. The investigator, or a suitable replacement with sufficient knowledge, can also be required to attend to answer questions.
The instrument gives complainants a more defined place in the process. Where the deputy chief constable decides there is no case to answer on misconduct or gross misconduct, the person who made the complaint must usually be told that outcome, the route chosen instead - whether no further action, improvement action or the Performance Regulations - and the reasons for the decision. The regulations also require complainants in eligible cases to be told the date, time and location of misconduct proceedings and to be permitted to attend as observers, so far as the person conducting the proceedings considers appropriate. Outcome reporting is also rewritten. Within 10 working days of the end of misconduct proceedings, the decision-maker must submit a full report to the deputy chief constable, including reasons and, where gross misconduct is found but dismissal without notice is not imposed, the reasons for that choice. The deputy chief constable must then consider separate versions for the constable, the complainant and publication. Publication of a version of the report on the Police Service of Scotland website for 28 days becomes the default position, with withholding, redaction, anonymisation or non-publication limited to specified grounds such as criminal proceedings, crime prevention, the safety of witnesses or informants, data protection and the public interest.
Part 3A introduces the new accelerated misconduct hearing. The deputy chief constable may certify a case for that route where there is sufficient written or documentary evidence to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the conduct amounts to gross misconduct, and where the public interest requires the constable to cease to hold office without delay. Once certified, the constable must be given notice, the relevant documents and the date of the hearing, which must ordinarily be fixed between 10 and 15 working days after notice is given. The accelerated route is narrower and quicker than an ordinary misconduct hearing. The constable must respond within eight working days, and the hearing must be conducted by another constable who is at least a superintendent and at least two ranks above the constable concerned, with power to appoint an assessor. Apart from the constable, no witness may give evidence at the hearing, although the investigator may be required to attend to answer questions. If gross misconduct is not established, the case can be dismissed or sent back into the ordinary process. If it is established, the available sanctions are a final written warning, demotion, dismissal with notice or dismissal without notice. A report must then be produced and handled under a publication regime that closely mirrors the ordinary procedure, and appeal rights are extended so the existing appeal framework also covers accelerated decisions.
The sanction structure is adjusted more widely than the accelerated route alone. Verbal warnings are removed from ordinary misconduct proceedings. Written warnings will remain live for 18 months, final written warnings for two years, and a later decision-maker may extend a final written warning to a maximum of five years in specified circumstances. The same two-year period, with a possible extension to five years, now applies to final written warnings issued after an accelerated hearing. The schedule also updates special constable record-keeping and the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland General Regulatory Chamber police appeals procedure so the new route can be administered. Transitional and saving provisions are extensive. Cases concerning conduct before 26 November 2026, or cases already in progress before that date, generally stay under the earlier rules. That approach limits disruption to live files while allowing Police Scotland to move new cases onto the revised model from late November. In operational terms, the regulations require new publication workflows, new case-management discipline, revised disclosure practice and more structured support for witnesses and complainants.