Consultation on the review of the Stop and Search of Persons in Scotland Code of Practice for Constables: analysis of responses

Executive summary

Introduction

The Scottish Government undertook a public consultation on a revised Code of Practice governing the use of stop and search powers by constables in Scotland. A Short Life Working Group (SLWG) was established to oversee the review and ensure the revision of the code delivered on the statutory requirements. Members of the SLWG included representatives from Police Scotland, Scottish Police Authority, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, as well as an academic representative and Scottish Government Legal Directorate representatives. The consultation, which ran from 10 February to 5 May 2026, sought views on whether the revised Code provides a clear, proportionate, and rights‑compliant framework for the exercise of these powers including appropriate safeguards relating to human rights, equality, privacy and children's rights.

The revised Code builds on the original 2017 Code of Practice introduced under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. It aims to reflect developments in law, policing practice and society, while strengthening guidance on human rights, equality, accountability, and the treatment of children and vulnerable people.

This report presents findings from analysis of responses submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space, and received manually via email. It draws on both quantitative analysis of closed questions and qualitative thematic analysis of open questions and manual responses.

A total of 31 responses were received to the consultation. 21 from organisations and 10 from individuals. Following quality assurance processes, one individual response was excluded due to offensive and irrelevant content. Of the total analysed responses, 21 (70%) were from organisations and 9 (30%) from individuals. The organisations who submitted responses included policing bodies and a range of organisations focused on human rights, children and young people, LGBTQ+, ethnic minorities, vulnerable adults, disabilities, gender, and policy analysis.

As with all public consultations, responses reflect the views of those who chose to engage and are not necessarily representative of the wider population. The analysis therefore focuses on identifying the range and nature of views expressed, rather than the prevalence of particular positions.

Overview of findings

A number of crosscutting themes emerged consistently in respect of the revisions made to the original 2017 Code of Practice:

Equalities and human rights

Respondents emphasised the need for the revised Code to better reflect the experiences of ethnic minority communities, including strengthening its’ human rights framework and addressing potential disparities in search practices. Calls were made for clearer guidance on non‑discrimination, improved recognition of officer bias, and stronger monitoring and scrutiny mechanisms. While some welcomed progress made by the revised Code in comparison to the original Code, others felt protections had been weakened or lacked practical clarity.

Concerns were also raised about evidence of disproportionate use of more intrusive searches, including on minority ethnic children and young people, alongside calls for improved training and more robust equality data collection.

Searches of children and young people

Respondents highlighted the need for the revised Code to have stronger safeguards when stop and search powers are applied to children and young people. Key issues included thresholds for searches, the use of strip and intimate searches and clearer requirements around the presence of a responsible adult. There were also calls for greater alignment with the UNCRC and more explicit recognition of children’s rights.

Vulnerability and accessibility

Feedback indicated a need for clearer guidance on identifying and supporting vulnerable individuals. Respondents called for the revised Code to have improved definitions, stronger guidance on communication and accessibility, and a more consistent approach to accommodating a range of support needs.

Sex and gender

Findings were varied, with respondents expressing differing views on how defining sex for the purpose of searches should operate within the Code. Feedback highlighted issues relating to same‑sex searching. Some respondents considered that terminology such as ‘gender identity’ lacked sufficient clarity in this context and others. Concerns were also raised about the use of consent in this context and the potential impact on officers who may be asked to conduct a search of a person of the opposite sex.

Strip and intimate searches

Views were mixed, with respondents questioning whether the revised Code provides sufficient safeguards given the intrusive nature of these searches. Key issues included protecting dignity and privacy, ensuring clear requirements for same‑sex searching, and strengthening safeguards for children and vulnerable individuals. There were also calls for greater clarity on thresholds, proportionality, and use only as a last resort.

Data and record keeping

Respondents were broadly supportive of data recording and monitoring requirements but identified opportunities to improve transparency, accountability and scrutiny. Suggestions included collecting more detailed equality data, improving access to records, and strengthening oversight mechanisms. Respondents emphasised that any additional recording requirements should remain proportionate and workable in an operational policing context.

Public confidence and communication

Respondents emphasised the importance of clear communication in building trust. While the revised Code was seen to support this in principle, feedback suggested that greater recognition of community concerns and stronger guidance on engagement, particularly with minority ethnic communities, would further improve public confidence.