Police Suspensions Hit 5-Year High: What This Means for Your Defence

When confidence in policing is under strain, what safeguards exist to protect the innocent from investigative tunnel vision and institutional defensiveness?

Beyond the Headlines: Suspension as a Justice Signal

Official Freedom of Information data released by Police Scotland shows a sharp rise in officer suspensions, reaching a five-year high. In the most recent full year, 65 officers were suspended, up from 44 in 2023/24, 28 in 2021/22, and 25 in 2020/21. A further 35 officers were suspended in the first five and a half months of 2025/26.

Suspension remains a neutral procedural step, not a finding of guilt. However, when a policing institution itself determines that a growing number of officers may be unfit for operational duties while under investigation, this can no longer be treated as a purely internal employment matter.

Police conduct underpins criminal prosecutions and public safety. It is, by definition, a justice issue.

The Fallacy of “Anti-Police” Scrutiny

Calls for accountability are often dismissed as “anti-police”. This framing operates as a rhetorical shield, deflecting legitimate scrutiny and reform. Public trust is not sustained by uncritical deference; it is earned through credible, independent oversight.

Scotland has taken important steps with the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Act 2025, including the introduction of a statutory Code of Ethics and a duty of candour. But a legal framework is only as effective as the culture implementing it. When institutions face reputational risk, self-protection can still prevail, creating the conditions in which miscarriages of justice occur.

The Psychology of the Narrative

Most wrongful prosecutions do not arise from deliberate malice, but from powerful cognitive and institutional incentives. Once an investigation commits to a particular narrative, confirmation bias can take hold:

  • The Arrest becomes a public marker of investigative progress.
  • The Charge becomes a defence of the initial decision to arrest.
  • Contradictory Facts are reframed as complications or noise.
  • Exculpatory Material is treated as an inconvenience rather than a lead.

High Stakes for the Falsely Accused

For individuals facing allegations, particularly in credibility-dependent cases, police conduct can determine outcomes. An unchecked narrative carries serious risks:

  • Hardened Theory where early assumptions close off alternative explanations.
  • Selective Disclosure that limits the defence’s ability to test the case.
  • Narrative Stacking where weak or unproven allegations are combined to suggest a false pattern.

The Missing Safeguard: Case Integrity Reviews

One vital reform remains absent from the Scottish justice conversation: the retrospective audit.

Where an officer is under investigation for matters involving integrity, credibility, or evidence handling, there should be an automatic, independent, and auditable review of every case in which that officer played a material role.

This is not anti-police. It is pro-justice.

A Rational Path Forward

The Scottish Government and oversight bodies already acknowledge rising complaint volumes and the need for candour. The question is no longer whether scrutiny is legitimate, but whether it is effective and timely.

A justice system fails twice when tunnel vision prevails: it fails victims by missing the truth, and it fails the accused by ignoring it.

Our Position: Practical Accountability

Accused.scot supports a justice system measured not by conviction rates, but by its ability to avoid convicting the innocent.

  • Independent scrutiny with power to compel evidence
  • Enforced candour in misconduct and criminal investigations
  • Disclosure reform prioritising fairness over institutional comfort
  • Automatic case integrity reviews where officer credibility is in question

Sources and Fact-Checking

Suspension figures are drawn directly from Police Scotland FOI disclosures. Media reporting may reference these figures, but the primary source is the official FOI document linked above.

Update: Risk Assessments and Transparency

Since publication, we have been directed to Scottish Police Authority FOI material indicating that risk assessments are undertaken when officers are suspended or placed under investigation.

This is an important clarification. It also reinforces the central problem: the process is largely opaque.
The criteria applied, the scope of any assessment, and what follow-on steps are triggered are not published, independently audited, or reported in a way the public can meaningfully scrutinise.

The same FOI material also indicates that most suspensions relate to alleged off-duty conduct.
That does not lessen the need for transparency. Whether allegations arise on duty or off duty, suspension is a serious intervention with reputational and public confidence consequences, and it carries a clear public interest in oversight.

Where safeguards exist but remain hidden, public confidence cannot follow. The issue is not one of presuming guilt, but of transparency, proportionality, and independent oversight. Without visibility, assurances amount to little more than “trust us”, and that is precisely the kind of arrangement that breeds mistrust.

Discuss on X with @AccusedScots