Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Criminal Justice Committee 02 October 2024

02 Oct 2024 · S6 · Criminal Justice Committee

Item of business

Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Dowey, Sharon Con South Scotland Watch on SPTV

Amendment 12 seeks to define a time limit for misconduct proceedings being initiated against former constables. The amendment would mean that regulations would have to provide for a period after which the ability to take action against a former constable would cease to be available. The bill as drafted says only that such a time limit “may” be created. It is essential that proceedings against a former constable cannot be initiated indefinitely. I recognise the importance of being able to conduct proceedings against someone who has ceased to be a constable and that the provisions deal with an important issue, but a particular period must be set in which such proceedings can be initiated. My amendment 13 proposes that the specific time limit is set at 12 months. That seems reasonable and reflects the suggestions in the Scottish Government’s policy memorandum. Amendments 51, 14 and 52 set out criteria that would allow proceedings to commence outwith the time limit to ensure that proceedings could be initiated in appropriate circumstances. The criteria include a public interest test, circumstances in which the investigation leads to the person being placed on the barred list or the advisory list and circumstances in which the behaviour amounts to a criminal offence. Amendment 13 is consequential to amendment 12 and would mean that a time “not exceeding one year” would be set in which proceedings against former constables could commence. Amendment 51 relates to previous amendments. It would set a test for allowing proceedings to begin against someone more than a year after they had ceased to be a constable. The two criteria are a public interest test and if an officer, after being subject to an investigation, with unsatisfactory behaviour being proven, was put on the barred list or the advisory list. That would ensure that proceedings could, when appropriate, continue outside the set time period. Like amendment 51, amendment 14 sets out a criterion that would allow proceedings to commence against someone who had ceased to be a constable. The criterion is that such proceedings would be in the public interest. The amendment would ensure that the proceedings could, when appropriate, continue outside the set time period. Amendment 52 sets out a further exception to the time limit being followed for commencing proceedings against former constables. That exception is that, when the behaviour in question amounts to a criminal offence, proceedings can, when appropriate, continue outside the set time period. Amendment 53 would add to the procedure for conducting misconduct proceedings against officers who left following allegations of misconduct. It seeks to ensure that a constable would be provided with notice that disciplinary proceedings against them would continue if they resigned during proceedings and that, if they did not engage, the proceedings would continue to a conclusion in their absence. The amendment addresses concerns about officers resigning and facing no investigation into their actions, so disciplinary proceedings would proceed and would come to a conclusion in their absence if they chose not to engage, although they would be kept informed of proceedings. Amendment 54 relates to circumstances in which an officer faces both disciplinary and criminal proceedings. First, it would mean that disciplinary proceedings could continue despite criminal proceedings also taking place. It would also mean that evidence and the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings would be kept private until the criminal proceedings had concluded. During our evidence, we heard criticism about delays to disciplinary processes. Amendment 54 seeks to tackle that problem. It would ensure that there were no unnecessary delays in conducting disciplinary proceedings and, subsequently, in dismissing an officer while criminal proceedings were on-going. The amendment would also mean that criminal proceedings were not impacted by the outcome of disciplinary procedures. 10:15

Search Hansard contributions

Criminal Justice Committee 02 October 2024

In the same item of business