Scotland is about to rewrite how Police Scotland handles officer conduct, and this is more than a tidy-up of legal wording. The Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Amendment Regulations 2026 were made on 29 September 2026, laid before the Scottish Parliament on 1 October 2026 and come into force on 26 November 2026. Signed by Scottish minister Neil Gray after the statutory consultation process, the instrument reshapes how misconduct, gross misconduct and complaints against constables will be handled. According to the Scottish Statutory Instrument, ministers have gone beyond procedure and moved into the question communities actually care about: how quickly serious cases are dealt with, how much complainants are told, and how much the public gets to see once a decision has been reached.

The biggest change is a new accelerated misconduct hearing for the most serious cases. Where the deputy chief constable decides there is enough written evidence to show, on the balance of probabilities, that conduct amounts to gross misconduct, and where the public interest says the officer should stop holding office without delay, the case can be fast-tracked rather than pushed through the standard route. That hearing must usually be fixed between 10 and 15 working days after notice is given. It is largely document-led and, unless the rules say otherwise, witnesses other than the constable will not usually give evidence. The available outcomes are stiff: a final written warning, demotion, dismissal with notice or dismissal without notice. There is still a right of appeal, but the message from the regulations is plain enough: if a case is strong and urgent, Police Scotland is being given a quicker way to get to a finish.

Just as important is what happens after a decision. Under the new rules, the person running misconduct proceedings must submit a written report within 10 working days, and the deputy chief constable must publish a version of that report on the Police Service of Scotland website for 28 days unless there is a clear reason not to. Similar publication duties now apply to accelerated hearings as well. For complainants, that matters. Where a complaint came from a member of the public, a constable or police staff, they must be told when proceedings are taking place and can attend as observers in appropriate parts of the hearing. They must also receive the outcome and the reasons behind it, subject to redactions around criminal proceedings, personal data, safety or wider public interest. Even where there is no case to answer, the regulations say the complainant should be told the decision and the reasons for it.

There is also a marked shift in how witnesses and vulnerable people are expected to be treated. The regulations insert a formal definition of trauma-informed practice, spelling out that decision-makers must recognise past trauma, understand how it can affect evidence, and adapt processes to avoid causing further harm where possible. That carries through into the hearing rules. Witnesses can be allowed to give evidence by remote link, from behind a screen, with a supporter present or in private where fairness can still be protected. In practical terms, the process is being written less around institutional convenience and more around whether people can actually take part without being worn down by it.

Another notable change is how mixed-rank cases are handled. Where an allegation touches both a constable and a senior officer, the deputy chief constable and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner can agree a joint investigation strategy. One line is kept firm: a constable and a senior officer must not be interviewed together. There can be shared lines of enquiry, shared witness material and shared documents, but no joint report and no merging of each side's separate legal duties. The instrument also tightens the front end of the system. Suspension is no longer framed as the first answer by default. Senior officers must consider temporary redeployment before suspension, and a suspension should only stand where an investigation could be prejudiced or the public interest requires it. That will not end rows about when officers should be kept off duty, but it does force a clearer paper trail.

For officers going through the process, the procedure itself is being made more structured. Legal representation is extended to misconduct pre-hearings, accelerated hearings and relevant appeals, although neither a solicitor nor a police representative can answer questions on the constable's behalf. New pre-hearings are meant to sort out witness issues, disclosure disputes, dates and points of law before the main hearing starts, and the deputy chief constable must appoint a presenting officer to put the case. There is also a target for the first day of misconduct proceedings to begin within 100 working days of the misconduct form being served, unless the interests of justice require more time. Investigators must give fresh notice if their view changes on the seriousness of the alleged conduct or on what conduct is actually being investigated. That may sound technical, but it goes to basic fairness: officers should know the case they are facing, and complainants should not see matters drift in silence.

The regulations also pull special constables into the main conduct framework from 26 November 2026, while keeping transition rules in place so older cases are still dealt with under the previous system where the alleged conduct happened before that date. Appeal paperwork is being updated too, including the rules used by the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland's police appeals chamber. Alongside that, verbal warnings disappear, written warnings will last 18 months, and final written warnings will last two years, with room in later cases to extend a final warning to a maximum of five years. For Scottish communities, the real test will not be in the drafting but in the follow-through once these rules take effect. Published reports, clearer complainant rights and a faster process for the toughest cases all point towards sharper accountability on paper. Readers across the wider North will recognise the pressure points straight away: speed, openness and whether complainants are treated as part of the process rather than a problem to be managed. Whether that builds public confidence will depend on how openly Police Scotland uses the new powers, and how willing it is to show its workings when trust is on the line.