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

5. Fair and respectful practice (Q4, Q5)

5.1 Questions 4 and 5 in the consultation asked respondents to consider whether the revised Code ensures individuals are treated fairly and respectfully during a search. Question 4 is a closed question, while question 5 is an open question which allowed respondents to submit further feedback on this matter.

Question 4: Does the revised Code provide clear guidance to ensure everyone is treated fairly and respectfully during a search?

Question 5: Please provide any suggestions where the Code could be strengthened or provide stronger protection for individual or group rights.

5.2 The sections below look at the responses received to each question in turn.

Question 4: Does the revised Code provide clear guidance to ensure everyone is treated fairly and respectfully during a search?

5.3 This closed question asked respondents to answer ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Don’t know’ as to whether the revised Code provides sufficient guidance to ensure stop and search encounters are fair and respectful.

5.4 This question received a total of 26 responses. 65% of the responses to this question were submitted by organisations, while the remaining 35% came from individual respondents. Responses to this question were mixed, with 54% of respondents answering ‘No’. Of the remaining respondents, 38% answered ‘Yes’ and 8% answered ‘Don’t know’. For the respondents who answered ‘No’, it was made up of 71% organisations and 29% individuals. Out of those who answered ‘Yes’ to this question, the responses were split, 50% organisations and 50% individuals. The two remaining respondents who answered ‘Don’t know’, both were organisational respondents, both of which offered further information in reply to question 5.

5.5 Of the 26 responses to this question, 24 of these offered further feedback in reply to the next question.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Question 5: Please provide any suggestions where the Code could be strengthened or provide stronger protection for individual or group rights.

5.6 This open question offered respondents an opportunity to offer further feedback on their views on how the Code could be strengthened to provide stronger protection for individual or group rights. There was a total of 24 responses to this question, with 67% of responses coming from organisations, and the remaining 33% from individuals.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

5.7 Overall, respondents recognised improvement in the revised Code’s emphasis on equality and human rights, but many considered that further improvements were required to ensure these principles are consistently reflected in practice. Feedback highlighted a need for clearer, more practical guidance, alongside stronger safeguards to address potential risks of discrimination and unequal treatment.

Equalities and non-discrimination

5.8 A number of respondents welcomed aspects of the revised Code, including its emphasis on non‑discrimination and removal of language perceived as potentially stereotypical. However, there were concerns that the revised Code does not go far enough in addressing how discrimination is prevented in practice. Respondents highlighted the need for stronger guidance on identifying and mitigating bias, including implicit bias, and for clearer expectations on officers to take an actively anti‑discriminatory approach. There were also calls for improved monitoring and oversight to identify and address potential disparities, particularly in relation to ethnicity.

5.9 Some respondents also raised concerns about the extent to which the revised Code reflects the experiences of minority ethnic communities, including in relation to particular powers and search contexts. Suggestions included strengthening guidance on culturally sensitive searches and providing clearer direction on how officers should balance policing objectives with individuals’ rights to privacy, religion and cultural expression.

Sex and gender

5.10 Some respondents raised matters relating to sex and gender, particularly in the context of safeguarding dignity and privacy during searches. Feedback reflected differing views on how these concepts should be applied in practice, including calls for clearer guidance on same‑sex searching and on how searches should be conducted where a person’s sex may be different from how they identify.

5.11 Respondents also voiced concerns about the practical implementation of these provisions, including the extent to which officers can decline to participate in certain searches and the potential pressures faced in operational settings. Some respondents emphasised the importance of recognising the rights of transgender individuals, while others called for clearer guidance based on sex. Across these differing views, there was a common theme that the relevant provisions need to be clearer and easier to apply in practice.

Children and young people

5.12 Respondents highlighted the need for stronger recognition of children’s rights within the revised Code, including clearer alignment with the UNCRC. Feedback suggested that the revised Code could be strengthened through more explicit guidance on the rights of children and young people, including their right to understand the process, to be supported during searches, and to access complaints mechanisms where necessary.

Accessibility and vulnerability

5.13 Responses also requested the revised Code to strengthen accessibility and support for individuals with additional needs. Respondents highlighted the importance of ensuring that all individuals understand their rights and the search process, particularly those with communication barriers, disabilities or additional support needs.

5.14 Suggested improvements included clearer guidance on inclusive communication, the provision of accessible materials in alternative formats, and greater emphasis on identifying and responding to less visible needs. Some respondents also called for more practical guidance on adapting search procedures and for clearer, more sensitive language in describing vulnerability.

Operational clarity and use of powers

5.15 Some responses focused on the operational application of stop and search powers, including calls for clearer guidance on how key principles, such as seeking cooperation, should be applied in practice. There were also suggestions for greater clarity on thresholds and processes, to support consistent and proportionate decision‑making.