POLICE SCOTLAND ORAL EXAM OFFICIAL PROCEDURES.

Police Scotland oral exam official procedures, an unwritten employment law rule, or something even more dangerous at play?

Article by the AI Benefits Oracle: A Public Interest Story.

Police Scotland oral exam official procedures. For years, Police Scotland has operated under a framework of assessment that dictates who qualifies for duty and who does not. Among those assessments, oral exams have emerged as a critical—yet largely undocumented—element of the process. Despite widespread enforcement, official documentation verifying their necessity remains elusive.

The Unwritten Rule That Shapes Careers

Tulliallan, Scotland’s national police training centre, has long been the gatekeeper for new recruits. According to accounts from officers who have undergone training, a consistent message has been drilled into candidates: “No matter how thick you are, it’s oral exams, or you’re out.” This statement raises a troubling question: Is this an official policy, or is it simply an entrenched practice used to control who passes and who fails?

Multiple sources indicate that oral exams have been enforced as an unwritten rule rather than a structured requirement. But if Police Scotland has no formal policy demanding oral exams as a pass condition, then past dismissals due to oral assessments could be called into question. Officers who were let go on this basis may have grounds to appeal, potentially unravelling years of recruitment decisions and performance evaluations.

Institutional Bias or Legitimate Assessment?

The issue extends beyond just individual experiences. Trainers overseeing these oral exams appear to be drawn from the same division, sharing intelligence and reinforcing internal narratives rather than ensuring independent assessment. This raises concerns about fairness, bias, and potential systemic flaws within the evaluation process.

Furthermore, legal experts suggest that enforcing unwritten rules without official documentation creates liability risks, particularly in cases where oral exams were used selectively to dismiss officers. If oral assessments were not universally required, then those dismissed under their weight may have been victims of procedural unfairness, possibly amounting to victimization under the Equality Act 2010.

The Disproportionate Impact on Neurodivergent Officers

Across the UK, approximately 30% of police officers are neurodivergent, meaning they may have conditions such as dyslexia, ADHD, autism, or other cognitive differences. These officers bring vital skills to policing, including enhanced pattern recognition, strategic thinking, and problem-solving. However, informal policies like mandatory oral exams can become exclusionary barriers, disproportionately affecting them in ways that compromise fairness and accessibility.

🔹 Oral exams heavily favour verbal processing speed—something that doesn’t define intelligence or operational ability, but can unfairly disadvantage those with slower verbal recall. 🔹 Neurodivergent officers often excel in written or practical assessments—yet, if oral exams are prioritized without accommodations, their skills are sidelined. 🔹 Unwritten rules create an uneven playing field—if oral exams weren’t an official requirement, then dismissing officers based on them may constitute indirect discrimination under UK law. 🔹 If past neurodivergent officers were dismissed unfairly, they could have legal grounds to challenge their assessments retroactively.

For an institution that prides itself on fairness and inclusion, Police Scotland must now answer a critical question: Have they unintentionally—or deliberately—filtered out neurodivergent officers through informal, exclusionary practices?

Legal Precedents That Strengthen the Case

If past officers were dismissed based solely on oral exams, UK case law suggests they may have grounds for legal challenge, including:

🔹 C v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland—This case highlighted failures in procedural fairness within Scottish policing, reinforcing concerns about arbitrary dismissals. 🔹 R (on the application of Miller) v The College of Policing—Examined standards in police assessments and the need for clear, documented policies. 🔹 Equality Act 2010 (Victimisation & Discrimination)—If neurodivergent officers were disproportionately affected, they may have legal recourse under anti-discrimination protections. 🔹 Judicial Review Challenges—Cases brought against UK police forces for procedural inconsistencies could serve as a precedent for challenging oral exam-based dismissals.

What Comes Next?

The question remains—will Police Scotland acknowledge this procedural flaw, or will it resist transparency? As scrutiny intensifies, past dismissals could be re-examined, and future assessments may need complete restructuring to ensure fairness.

For now, oral exams remain a shadow policy—unwritten, unchallenged, and fundamentally flawed. But for those affected, the fight for answers has only just begun.

This article was written by a human for humans, but was also helped along by Copilot AI.

We would love to hear your stories. If you have been a victim, please write your story on how you were treated below in the comments section.

The AI Benefits website has its own Privacy Policy and our policy on site Copyright.

AI Benefits is fully sponsored by the top SEO team at ScottishSEO.com