Police chief asked for publication of highly critical report into misconduct and discipline to be delayed ahead of election
Scotland's Chief Constable, Jo Farrell, asked for a highly critical watchdog report into police misconduct and discipline to be delayed until after the Holyrood election, according to confirmation from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS). Inspector Craig Naylor said his review was ready for publication in March but was paused four days beforehand at the request of Ms Farrell and the Scottish Police Authority's chief executive, Chris Brown. Critics, including the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, warned the move risked undermining public confidence in the independence and transparency of police scrutiny.
The review examined conduct and discipline arrangements across Police Scotland and the SPA, and is understood to have been delayed partly due to an ongoing bullying investigation into Deputy Chief Constable Jane Connors. When finally published in late May, the report found police chiefs were failing to meet "expected standards of professional behaviour" and that the force had not reported all allegations of senior officer wrongdoing to the SPA. It made 24 recommendations covering professional standards, leadership, wellbeing support and accountability, with Mr Naylor stressing no changes were made to the findings during the delay.
- Police Scotland chief asked to delay damning report until after election
- Report found failures in officer standards and wrongdoing reporting
- Watchdog issued 24 recommendations; critics call delay "scandalous"
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to the request note that watchdog reports into a public institution can easily become a political football in the final weeks of an election campaign, with findings quoted selectively by rival parties for advantage rather than considered on their merits. On this view, seeking a short delay was not about hiding wrongdoing but about protecting the credibility of both the report and the electoral process, ensuring the findings are debated on substance once the vote is settled rather than becoming a partisan weapon. A police chief responsible for public confidence in policing might reasonably argue that publishing damaging findings mid-campaign risks the force itself being dragged into party politics, undermining its operational neutrality.
The case against
Critics argue that the timing of the request is itself troubling, since deferring a critical report on misconduct and discipline until after voters have gone to the polls denies the public information that could reasonably bear on their choices, particularly if policing or public accountability is a live campaign issue. They would say that transparency bodies exist precisely to hold institutions to account regardless of the political calendar, and that allowing officials to time-manage unfavourable findings around elections sets a troubling precedent, inviting suspicion that the request was about shielding the force and its leadership from scrutiny rather than protecting electoral integrity. On this view, the public's right to know should not be subordinate to political convenience.