When HR Becomes the Gatekeeper: How Police Scotland’s Internal Processes Obstruct Justice for Neurodivergent Staff.

My post content

🔍 Introduction

Police Scotland claims to support neurodivergent staff—but when misconduct arises, their internal processes tell a different story. In one case, a staff member was referred to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) for serious concerns, only to be rerouted back to HR and told to engage with a civilian investigator. The twist? Much of the bundle is criminal in nature.

⚖️ Criminal Allegations, Civilian Oversight.

• Initial PSD Referral: HR acknowledged the seriousness of the case and referred it to PSD.

• Sudden Reversal: HR now insists that engagement with a civilian “Team Lead” is “absolutely required.”

• Why It’s Problematic: Civilian HR staff lack investigative powers under criminal law. Their remit is grievance, not misconduct or criminal breaches.

• Jurisdictional Breach: Re-routing criminal matters into HR grievance frameworks is not just inappropriate—it obstructs justice.

🧩 Procedural Containment and Neurodivergent Harm

• Forced Engagement: Neurodivergent staff are pressured to engage with processes that lack transparency and legitimacy.

• Jurisdictional Confusion: Criminal matters are downgraded to “grievances,” erasing the severity of the misconduct.

• Isolation Tactics: HR refuses to communicate with third-party support, effectively gagging neurodivergent staff from accessing advocacy.

🚫 Refusal to Accept Neurodiversity Advocacy: A Legal Breach

Police Scotland HR has refused to accept correspondence from a neurodivergent staff member’s chosen advocate, despite the advocate being appointed specifically to support communication and procedural engagement.

This refusal is not just unethical—it may be unlawful:

Legal Framework Breach Equality Act 2010 Denying reasonable adjustments (like third-party advocacy) breaches disability protections. Public Sector Equality Duty: Police Scotland must actively eliminate discrimination and foster inclusion.ACAS Code of Practice Employees have the right to be accompanied or supported in grievance and disciplinary matters. Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 (fair hearing) and Article 8 (private life) may be engaged if support is denied.

💸 Economic Coercion and Control

• Secondary Employment Restrictions: Imposed “in good faith,” then reversed when income loss became reputationally risky.

• Impact on Neurodivergent Staff: Financial instability compounds stress and undermines focus, especially during probation or exams.

📜 What Needs to Change

1. Clear jurisdictional boundaries between grievance and misconduct/criminal processes.

2. Independent oversight of HR referrals and reversals.

3. Neurodivergent-safe complaint pathways—with transparency, third-party access, and trauma-informed engagement.

4. Public documentation of procedural misdirection and containment tactics.

5. Legal accountability for refusal to accept neurodiversity advocates in formal correspondence.

🗣️ Call to Action

If you’ve experienced similar tactics—referrals reversed, criminal matters downgraded, or advocacy blocked—reach out. NeurodivergentCharity.org.uk is building a reform archive to expose systemic failures and empower staff across public institutions.