A Structured Model That Has Never Been Tested

Scotland trains its officers to use a structured interview framework known as PRICE. It sounds modern. It sounds disciplined. It sounds safe.

But a detailed academic chapter comparing interview models in the UK and Norway makes a striking observation: unlike the PEACE model used in England and Wales, Scotland’s PRICE model has never been empirically evaluated.

You can read/download the chapter here:

That absence matters. Police interviews shape the evidential narrative long before a jury ever hears a word.

What PRICE Actually Involves

PRICE stands for:

• Planning and Preparation

• Rapport Building

• Information Gathering

• Confirming the Content

• Evaluation and Action

Structure is not the problem. The real question is what the structure assumes.

One distinctive feature of PRICE is the “Impact Question”. Interviews begin with wording such as:

“Tell me about your involvement in…”

That is not neutral phrasing. It frames the interaction around involvement from the outset. The interview does not begin with “What happened?” It begins with an implicit assumption.

Once that framing is in place, timelines are built, clarification follows, and challenges escalate.

Structure can reduce chaos. It can also narrow perspective.

Silence and Interpretation

The academic chapter notes that training material indicates even a “no comment” interview can generate material capable of being presented in court, including non-verbal reactions.

That is a difficult area.

Human beings are poor lie detectors. Silence, hesitation, posture, or discomfort are not reliable indicators of guilt. When those elements are treated as evidentially meaningful, the line between observation and inference becomes blurred.

In Scots law, a statement must be voluntary and fairly obtained. That boundary is not cosmetic. It is constitutional.

Now Add Moorov

Under the Moorov doctrine, separate allegations can mutually corroborate one another if they show sufficient similarity in time, character, and circumstances.

In principle, Moorov identifies a course of conduct. It does not prove bad character.

But consider how structure interacts with doctrine.

If interviews begin with an assumption of involvement, and if multiple accounts are gathered within that framework, similar themes may naturally emerge. Language becomes aligned. Events are organised into a pattern.

Once presented in court, those similarities can become the foundation for mutual corroboration.

This does not prove misconduct. It does illustrate structural risk.

When interview framing and Moorov operate together, narrative coherence can acquire evidential weight before alternative explanations are fully tested.

False Allegations and Structural Safeguards

False allegations do occur. That is not a political claim. It is a documented reality across jurisdictions.

The serious question is not about gender. It is about system design.

Any robust justice system must assume that:

• Some complainants may be mistaken

• Some accounts may be influenced by conflict or memory distortion

• Some narratives may evolve over time

The key safeguard is active testing of alternative hypotheses.

The Norwegian adaptation of PEACE explicitly embeds alternative hypothesis testing at its core. The academic chapter notes that Scotland’s PRICE model does not centrally formalise that requirement.

In multi-complainer cases, that absence matters.

If the structure of questioning is not explicitly hypothesis-neutral, and if corroboration can arise from similarity alone, the system risks consolidating narrative rather than rigorously testing it.

The Missing Evaluation

The chapter is clear. There has been no independent empirical assessment of PRICE in practice.

No published validation.

No systematic testing of its phases.

No scientific review of how it operates alongside Scottish evidential rules.

For a framework that can influence liberty, that absence is difficult to defend.

Confidence is not a substitute for evidence.

A Reasonable Reform Agenda

Scotland does not need less structure. It needs more scrutiny.

Reasonable steps would include:

• Publication of a full and transparent formulation of PRICE

• Independent empirical evaluation of the Impact Question and challenge phases

• Formal embedding of alternative hypothesis testing

• Routine refresher training and performance auditing

• Examination of how PRICE interacts with Moorov in multi-complainer cases

Justice depends on process. When process hardens into assumption, fairness becomes fragile.

Structured interviewing should not simply appear professional. It should be demonstrably neutral.

Editorial note: Accused.scot is an independent commentary site focused on justice process, evidence, and fair-trial principles in Scotland. Our work critiques systems, policy, and public discourse, not private individuals. We welcome reasoned challenge to our arguments. We do not engage in personal disputes or online pile-ons.