Concerns have been raised about the creation of a two-tier system for police misconduct hearings, which could put lower-ranking officers at risk.
Legislation before the Scottish Parliament would require a three-person panel including an independent member for gross misconduct hearings involving senior officers.
However, the same standard would not have to be met in cases involving rank-and-file officers, sparking concern over potential bias and unfairness.
The proposals also contradict recommendations made by Lady Elish Angiolini in her review of police misconduct issues.
This recommended a panel with an independent legally qualified chair, an independent lay member and a policing member for all gross misconduct hearings, regardless of rank.
In a letter to Holyrood’s justice committee, David Kennedy (pictured), general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, said he was “deeply concerned about a two-tier system”.
He wrote: “We ask the government to explain why officers facing comparable consequences should have different access to independent adjudication because of their rank.
“We also ask the committee to examine the continuing differences in appeal arrangements, including the scope of access to the first-tier tribunal.”
He called for the introduction of the new system to be delayed while the concerns were investigated, with the aim of achieving “parity across ranks”.
“Officers must have confidence that proceedings affecting their careers and livelihoods are fair”
He added: “The Federation supports an effective conduct system that addresses wrongdoing, protects the public and commands confidence.
“Officers must also have confidence that proceedings affecting their careers and livelihoods are fair, proportionate and independently scrutinised.”
Scottish Conservative justice spokesman Stephen Kerr attempted to overturn the legislation at a recent meeting of the committee.
He warned that the system could become a “kangaroo court”, and of the process itself becoming a punishment, as officers could face lengthy waits for outcomes.
He told the committee: “For me, the central issue is fairness, and fairness must apply irrespective of rank.
“Why should a constable facing dismissal have less independent adjudication than a chief constable facing precisely the same consequence? What evidence justifies rejecting Angolini’s recommendation?”
He added: “How can officers have confidence in the process where investigation, presentation, and initial adjudication remain substantially within the same organisation?
“External appeal safeguards exist, but come only after careers have been damaged, expense incurred and proceedings prolonged.
“Is it surprising that some officers perceive a two-tier system, or describe the existing arrangements as a kangaroo court?”
The committee agreed to seek further written evidence as well as in-person evidence, and consider the matter further at a future meeting.
In a letter to the committee, Justice Secretary Neil Gray wrote: “The Scottish Government has consistently accepted the broad thrust and intent of [Lady] Elish’s recommendations and has sought to implement those recommendations through a framework that is legally robust, operationally effective and compatible with wider public law and human rights obligations.
“Parliament endorsed significant reforms to police misconduct arrangements, including an enhanced role for the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner in senior officer misconduct proceedings and the establishment of independent panels to determine misconduct cases involving senior officers. These measures were scrutinised and approved by the committee and parliament.
“The suggestion that a distinct misconduct framework for senior officers represents a failure to implement reform does not reflect the approach scrutinised and ultimately endorsed by parliament.
“During consideration of the legislation, parliament examined the rationale for differentiated arrangements and accepted that the unique leadership responsibilities, public visibility and accountability associated with senior officer roles justified additional safeguard, transparency requirements and independent scrutiny.
“As a matter of public record, the Criminal Justice Committee concluded that a differentiated approach to senior officer misconduct arrangements was proportionate given the unique responsibilities and public accountability associated with those roles. Parliament subsequently approved that approach through the passage of the legislation.”
He said the reforms approved by parliament “represent a significant strengthening of independent scrutiny, accountability and public confidence within the police misconduct system”.
He added: “The existence of different procedural arrangements does not indicate a difference in standards of accountability.”
A Police Scotland spokesperson said the force had been “fully engaged throughout the process of the development, consultation and implementation” of the legislation.
They added: “Many aspects have already been introduced, including a new Standard of Professional Behaviour, and the Code of Ethics.
“We have submitted formal feedback to Scottish Government, and we remain committed to ensuring that our officers and staff uphold our values at all times, in order to maintain and grow public confidence in policing.”
