Police Scotland
Situational Judgement Exercise
The Situational Judgement Exercise (SJE) is the spoken, 60-minute part of the Police Scotland assessment day morning. This guide explains exactly what Police Scotland says about it, gives you a method for answering out loud, works through four original scenarios stage by stage and lets you try three free practice scenarios that unfold like the real exercise.
Independent information, not advice · Sources checked 22 October 2026 · Scotland unless stated
A 60-minute spoken exercise on the morning of the assessment day. Assessors describe unfolding, hypothetical policing scenarios to your group out loud and ask each of you individually what you would consider and what you would do. There is no reading or preparation time and no policing or legal knowledge is needed. It is assessed against Police Scotland's Competency and Values Framework and you must be successful in the morning to reach the afternoon interview.
The format, timing and framework on this page come from Police Scotland's recruitment page and candidate portal, read on 22 October 2026. Police Scotland does not publish its scenarios, marking guide, scoring scale or pass mark. Every scenario, weak and strong answer, checklist and tip below is original PolicePay practice material written to the published format. None of it is Police Scotland's.
What the SJE is and where it sits
The Situational Judgement Exercise is one of two assessed exercises on the morning of the Police Scotland assessment day. You reach the day after your application, the Police Scotland Entrance Test (PSET) and the 5.4 fitness test. The morning decides whether you go any further that day.
| When | Exercise | Length | What happens |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morning | Ice breaker | Not assessed | A chance to settle in and meet your group (listed on the candidate portal) |
| Morning | Group task | 50 minutes | 10 minutes' individual reading of a policing scenario of about 500 to 600 words; 30 minutes' group discussion and briefing to the assessors; 10 minutes' Q&A with the assessors |
| Morning | Situational Judgement Exercise (SJE) | 60 minutes | Assessors present unfolding, hypothetical policing scenarios out loud to your group and ask each of you individually what you would consider and do. No reading or comprehension time |
| Gate | Morning result | Only candidates who are successful in the morning go on to the afternoon | |
| Afternoon | Competency-based interview | 20 minutes | Four questions, each linked to a CVF competency that is named as the question is asked |
In the SJE an assessor describes a situation to your group out loud. Each of you is then asked, individually, what you would think about and what you would do. The situation then moves on: the assessor adds new information and asks again. You have no reading time and no time to prepare. That is why it rewards practice out loud, not reading.
Police Scotland's candidate portal says: "If you are successful in the morning, you will progress to the afternoon stage of the assessment day." The interview is only for candidates who succeed in the group task and the SJE, so the SJE matters as much as the interview you may have spent weeks preparing for.
Try 3 free SJE practice scenarios
The tool below runs three of our scenarios the way the exercise is described: the assessor's words are read out, you answer straight away, then the scenario moves on. The free versions run the first 2 stages of each scenario. They are original PolicePay scenarios, not Police Scotland's.
- Read-aloud. Your browser reads each stage out in its own voice. Some browsers cannot do this; you can still read the words.
- Listen-only mode. Hides the words so you only hear the stage once, which is closer to the day. You can show the words if you need them.
- Answer timer. Choose 90 seconds, 2 minutes or 3 minutes per stage. These are our practice settings: Police Scotland does not publish how long you have to answer.
- Speak or type. Speak your answer (the browser asks for your microphone) or type it if you prefer.
- Feedback. With a free signed-in account you get AI feedback on one answer a day. Without one, or once today's is used, you mark yourself against our assessor's checklist, then see our strong answer for stage 1 and the answers that get marked down.
Your score or ticks (never your answer) are kept in this browser only, so the pack section further down can show where you got to. The AI feedback and the checklist are ours, not Police Scotland's marking.
Try 3 free scenarios
Each one unfolds like the real exercise: the assessor describes a situation, you answer out loud straight away, then new information arrives. The free versions run the first 2 stages. Our scenarios, not Police Scotland's.
Exactly what Police Scotland says
Police Scotland describes the SJE in a few sentences across its recruitment page and candidate portal. The key words, quoted briefly:
- Presented out loud to the group. Your assessment group is verbally presented with unfolding, hypothetical policing scenarios by the assessors.
- Answered individually. You are "asked individually about your considerations and intended course of action".
- No preparation. "This is a reactive exercise with no reading or comprehension time."
- 60 minutes in total.
- No legal knowledge. The exercises are set in a policing context but there is "no requirement for any policing, legal or procedural knowledge".
- Assessed against the CVF. "All of the Competencies and Values are assessed throughout the course of the assessment day."
Police Scotland's public page spells it "Situational Judgement Exercise" and the portal spells it "Situational Judgment Exercise". It is the same exercise. Police Scotland does not publish how many scenarios there are, how many stages each has, how long each answer can be or how answers are scored.
It is not the online SJT used in England and Wales
Many guides online are written for England and Wales, where situational judgement is assessed online with multiple-choice questions as part of the College of Policing's National Sift. That is a different thing. Police Scotland's SJE is spoken, in a group setting, with each candidate answering individually and no options to choose from.
| Police Scotland SJE | England and Wales | |
|---|---|---|
| How you answer | Out loud, in your own words | Online, multiple choice |
| Where it sits | Assessment day morning, after the PSET and fitness test | National Sift, before the later stages |
| Preparation time | None: it is reactive | Not covered here |
| Framework | Police Scotland's CVF and its values of integrity, fairness, respect and human rights | The College of Policing framework (not used in Scotland) |
So practice tests with tick-box answers will not prepare you for the Scottish exercise. You need to practise thinking out loud. Other differences are in our Police Scotland vs England and Wales guide.
What "considerations and intended course of action" means
Police Scotland's own phrase tells you what to say. There are two halves and a strong answer covers both, out loud, every time.
| Part | What it means | How it can sound |
|---|---|---|
| Considerations | What you are weighing up before you act: risks, who is affected, who is vulnerable, what you know, what you do not know, what the values ask of you | "My first concern is the child's safety. I also need to know whether anyone else is involved and I'm aware the crowd is watching how I deal with this." |
| Intended course of action | What you would actually do, in a sensible order, with a reason for each step | "So the first thing I'd do is... then I'd... and before I leave I'd make sure..." |
Candidates often do one half only. Some list every risk they can think of and never say what they would do. Others give a list of actions with no reasons, which leaves the assessor guessing at the thinking behind them. The thinking is where the competencies and values show.
A useful shape for any stage: one or two sentences of considerations, then your actions in order, each with a short "because". Then, if it fits, one sentence on what you would do afterwards.
Stage: an older man has slipped on ice outside a shop and is sitting on the pavement, shaken. "My considerations are whether he's hurt, whether he's cold and whether anyone else could slip in the same place. So first I'd check he's all right and whether he needs an ambulance, without rushing him to stand up. I'd get him something warm to sit on and ask the shop staff to put a warning out. Once he's looked after I'd let the council know about the ice, because it could happen again."
A way to answer out loud: the SIPOR method
Police Scotland does not prescribe a method. Under pressure, a short checklist helps you cover the ground without freezing. Our assessment day guide introduced SIPOR as a memory aid. Here it is in full, with what to say and what each step tends to show. The last column is our reading of the CVF, not Police Scotland's marking guide.
| Step | Ask yourself | Say it like this | Tends to show |
|---|---|---|---|
| S: Safety | Is anyone at risk right now? That includes the public, the people involved, any child and me. | "Before anything else I'd check that nobody is hurt or in danger." | Human rights, we analyse critically |
| I: Information | What do I know? What am I assuming? What do I need to find out and from whom? | "I don't know yet what happened, so I'd ask each of them in turn." | We analyse critically, fairness |
| P: People | Who is affected? Who is vulnerable? How are they feeling and how should I speak to them? | "She's clearly frightened, so I'd speak quietly and take her somewhere calmer." | We are emotionally aware, respect |
| O: Options | What could I do? What would I do first and why? What is proportionate? | "I could do X or Y. I'd start with X because..." | We analyse critically, we take ownership |
| R: Report and review | Who do I tell or involve? What do I record? What do I check or follow up afterwards? | "I'd let control know, ask my sergeant for advice and go back to update her." | We are collaborative, we deliver, support and inspire |
Each step in more depth
- Safety. Think of everyone: the public, the people involved, any child and yourself. Safety is not only physical danger. A child alone at night, a person who has just been threatened or someone in the cold are all safety points. If there is no safety issue, one sentence saying so is enough.
- Information. Say what you know and what you do not. "I don't know yet who started it" is a strong sentence because it shows you are not assuming. Then say how you would find out: asking each person, witnesses, staff, cameras, checking with control.
- People. Who is affected and who is vulnerable? How are they likely to be feeling? How would you speak to them? This is where emotional awareness and respect show, so name the feeling: "she's frightened", "he's embarrassed".
- Options. Say what you would do first and why. If there is a real choice, name two options briefly and pick one with a reason. Keep it proportionate: the lightest action that keeps people safe is often the right first step.
- Report and review. Who would you tell or involve (control, a colleague, your sergeant, a specialist, a partner organisation)? What would you record? What would you check or follow up later? This is where ownership and collaboration show.
You do not need every step every time and you should never recite the letters. On a simple stage you might cover S, P and O in three sentences. Use SIPOR to avoid the two most common gaps: forgetting safety and forgetting to say who you would involve.
When the scenario changes: answering unfolding stages
Police Scotland describes the scenarios as unfolding. In practice that means the assessor adds information after your answer: someone new arrives, the risk changes or someone asks you to do something you should not. The change is the point of the stage. Your first job is to notice it and say so.
| What the new stage adds | What it is probably testing (our view) | How to start your answer |
|---|---|---|
| The risk goes up (a threat, an injury, a child, a weapon) | Whether you re-prioritise straight away | "That raises the risk, so my priority now is..." |
| The risk goes down | Whether you scale back to something proportionate | "That's reassuring, so I wouldn't need to... but I'd still..." |
| A new person arrives (relative, witness, onlooker) | Fairness and emotional awareness: do you hear them without dropping the first person? | "I'd listen to him too, but I wouldn't take his account as the whole picture." |
| Someone asks you to keep a secret or bend a rule | Integrity: do you stay honest and kind at the same time? | "I understand why she's asking, but I couldn't promise that. What I can do is..." |
| A colleague or supervisor does something wrong | Integrity and ownership | "I'd raise it with him at the time. If it wasn't put right I'd report it." |
| Your earlier decision turns out to be wrong | Ownership and open-mindedness | "In that case my first decision was wrong, so I'd..." |
| People are watching, filming or getting impatient | Staying calm and professional under pressure | "I'd stay calm and explain what I'm doing. People can film; I'd just stay professional." |
| The incident ends and you are asked what next | Thinking beyond the incident: follow-up, prevention, partners | "I'd update the family, record it properly and suggest..." |
Three rules for every new stage
- Name the change. Start with "That changes things because..." or "That's important because...". It shows the assessor you heard it.
- Keep what still applies. If you already asked for an ambulance, you do not need to ask again. Say "I'd still..." and move on.
- Own a change of mind. If the new information shows your earlier action was wrong, say so plainly and say what you would do now. That is a strength, not a weakness.
Do not try to guess the next stage. Answer the situation in front of you. If you jump ahead to something that has not happened, you can end up contradicting the next piece of information.
The Police Scotland Assessment Day Pack
The free taster gives you the first 2 stages of 3 scenarios. The Police Scotland Assessment Day Pack has the full set for the whole morning of the assessment day. It is £24.99 for 12 months of access: one payment, nothing renews, with a full refund within 14 days if you change your mind. Like everything on this page, it is original PolicePay practice material, not Police Scotland's.
- 42 SJE scenarios (150 stages in all), including the full versions of the three free ones. 24 of them have four stages. Each one is read aloud and answered out loud or typed, with the same read-aloud, listen-only and timer settings as the taster.
- AI feedback on every scenario. Each stage scored on our own scale (not Police Scotland's), what the assessor would still be waiting to hear, each Police Scotland value and competency rated and your weakest stage said more strongly.
- Our model answer and listening points for every stage.
- A timed 60-minute SJE mock. Scenarios run back to back for 60 minutes, the length Police Scotland gives for the exercise. Each finished scenario is marked while you carry on. Police Scotland does not publish how many scenarios it uses, so you get through as many as your pace allows.
- Progress tracking. Your history and your weakest values, competencies and themes, with a suggestion for what to practise next. Scores are kept in your browser.
- The group task trainer. 12 group task briefs in the 10, 30 and 10 minute shape: read under time, build a briefing plan, get AI feedback on the plan, then 48 Q&A practice questions across the briefs. More on our group task practice page.
| Theme (our grouping) | Scenarios | What they ask you to handle |
|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability and welfare | 9 | Children, older people, people in distress or at risk of harm and what you owe them |
| Conflict and calming things down | 7 | Arguments, angry people and crowds: how you lower the temperature fairly |
| Integrity and colleagues | 8 | Honesty when it is awkward, colleagues' conduct, gifts and favours |
| Community, fairness and diversity | 7 | Prejudice, community tension, treating different groups fairly |
| Information, priorities and decisions | 6 | Competing demands, conflicting accounts, deciding with incomplete information |
| Public safety and emergencies | 5 | Hazards, weather, fires, collisions and making a scene safe |
| Value | Scenarios that test it |
|---|---|
| Integrity | 14 |
| Fairness | 21 |
| Respect | 33 |
| Human rights | 29 |
Preparing for the afternoon too? The separate Police Scotland Interview Pack (£24.99) covers the four-question interview: see Police Scotland interview practice. No product can promise a pass: Police Scotland does not publish how it scores the day.
Showing the values and competencies in spoken answers
Police Scotland says all of its competencies and values are assessed across the assessment day. You will not be told which one a scenario is testing, so the safest approach is to let them show naturally in what you choose to do and how you talk about people. You do not need to name them.
The four values
Police Scotland's framework is underpinned by its values and the Code of Ethics for Policing in Scotland. The second column summarises the CVF; the last two are our suggestions for how each value can sound in an SJE answer.
| Value | In the CVF, in brief | How it sounds in an SJE answer | A line you might say |
|---|---|---|---|
| Integrity | Balancing competing principles; thinking about options so decisions withstand scrutiny; taking personal responsibility; challenging colleagues whose conduct falls below standard | Saying the honest option plainly even when it is awkward; not making promises you cannot keep; reporting wrongdoing | "I can't keep this between us, but I'll explain exactly what happens next." |
| Fairness | Understanding the cultural and social needs of individuals and communities; approaching situations calmly and tolerantly; self-control and impartiality | Hearing both sides before deciding; not assuming who is to blame because of age, appearance or where someone lives | "Before I decide anything I'd want to hear his side too." |
| Respect | Being considerate of others' needs while acting politely and professionally; treating all people humanely and with dignity | How you speak to and about everyone, including the person who is shouting; protecting dignity in embarrassing moments | "I'd speak to him away from the crowd so he isn't embarrassed." |
| Human rights | A rights-based approach: force only where strictly necessary; never tolerating inhuman or degrading treatment; everyone innocent until found guilty by a court | Protecting life and safety first; acting proportionately; respecting privacy and freedom; not restricting anyone more than you need to | "He hasn't done anything wrong, so I'd try to persuade him rather than force him." |
The six competencies
Police Scotland's CVF is modified with permission from the College of Policing's and keeps the same six competencies. Constables are assessed at level 1. The middle column draws on the level 1 behaviours; the examples are ours.
| Competency | What it sounds like | Example line |
|---|---|---|
| We are emotionally aware | Noticing how people feel; staying calm when provoked; clear, simple language; trying to understand people who cannot express themselves clearly | "He's clearly frightened, so I'd slow down, use his name and keep it simple." |
| We take ownership | Saying what you would do ("I would"), not what "the police" would do; following through; owning a mistake | "I'd ring her back myself tomorrow to tell her what's happened." |
| We are collaborative | Involving colleagues, supervisors, partners and specialists at the right moment, without handing the problem off | "I'd ask for another officer and let my sergeant know, because..." |
| We deliver, support and inspire | Thinking past the immediate incident: next steps, prevention, keeping people updated | "Once it's calm I'd make sure the family know what happens next." |
| We analyse critically | Sorting what you know from what you are assuming; weighing risks; changing the plan when new information arrives | "That changes things, because..." |
| We are innovative and open-minded | Not jumping to conclusions; considering more than one explanation; adapting when the situation moves | "There might be another reason she's behaving like this, so I'd..." |
Integrity stages (a colleague's misconduct, a request to keep a secret, a gift) usually have a clear right answer. Say it plainly and early. Hesitating or looking for a middle way is the weak response. You can be kind and still be clear.
Four worked scenarios, stage by stage
Four new scenarios written for this page. They are different from the nine on our assessment day guide and from the scenarios in the pack. Try each stage out loud before reading the answers: cover the page, or ask a friend to read the stages to you one at a time. The weak and strong answers and the notes are ours, not Police Scotland's marking.
Read stage 1, answer out loud for up to two minutes, then compare. Only then read stage 2. The strong answers are longer than you need: they show the range of things you could cover, not a script to learn.
Worked scenario 1: The wallet at the front counter
Theme: Fairness and respect at a police station counter. Values most in play: Fairness, respect, human rights (privacy), integrity.
You are working at the front counter of a town police station on a weekday afternoon. A boy of about 15 in school uniform comes in and hands you a brown leather wallet. He says he found it on the pavement outside the chemist ten minutes ago. Inside are a bank card, a driving licence and some cash. What are your considerations and what would you do?
"I'd thank him, take the wallet and put it in lost property."
Why it is weaker: It is polite but thin. It records nothing, misses the chance to count the contents with the boy present and says nothing about getting the wallet back to its owner quickly.
"First I'd thank him properly. Handing it in was the honest thing to do and I'd want him to leave feeling that. I'd count and list the contents in front of him, so nobody can question later what was in it. I'd note where and when he found it and take his name and a contact number, explaining why I'm asking. The driving licence gives me a name, so I'd find out how the station traces owners and start that straight away: the owner may be worried or trying to cancel cards. Then I'd make sure the wallet is recorded and stored properly, not left on the counter."
What it shows: Respect for the boy, ownership of the property, analysis (counting the contents now protects everyone later) and a clear sense of the owner's needs. No legal knowledge is used or needed.
Twenty minutes later the boy is still at the counter waiting for a lift. A man rushes in and says the wallet is his. When you show him the contents he says there was eighty pounds in it and now there is only twenty. He points at the boy and says, 'He's taken it.' What are your considerations now?
"I'd tell the man the boy handed it in so he obviously didn't take anything. Then I'd ask him to calm down or leave."
Why it is weaker: It takes a side without the facts, dismisses a real loss and is likely to make the man angrier. It also skips the boy's welfare: he is 15 and has just been accused in public.
"I'd stay calm and acknowledge that he's upset: losing money is stressful. I wouldn't accuse the boy or clear him on the spot. I'd ask the boy to wait in another area with a colleague, because he's a child who has just been accused and I'd think about letting a parent know. I'd explain to the man that we counted the contents when it was handed in and what we found. Then I'd ask him when he last saw the cash, whether he could have spent some of it and exactly where he thinks he dropped it. The chemist may have a camera covering the pavement. If he wants to report a theft I'd record it properly, but I'd also record that the boy came in on his own to hand it over."
What it shows: Fairness (no assumption either way), emotional awareness with an angry person, care for a young person and critical analysis: the count from stage 1 now matters.
The man calms down a little, then says, 'Kids like him from that estate are all the same. I want his name and address so I can speak to his parents myself.' The boy hears this and looks upset. What do you do?
"I'd give him the boy's details so they can sort it out between themselves."
Why it is weaker: It hands a child's personal details to an angry adult who has just accused him, which puts the boy at risk and breaks his trust. It also lets an unfair comment pass in front of him.
"I wouldn't give out the boy's details. He came in to help and his information is private, so I'd explain that politely but clearly. I'd also challenge the comment about 'kids from that estate' calmly, because it's unfair and the boy has heard it. I'd tell the man what happens next: his report is recorded, we'll check for cameras and I'll update him. Then I'd go back to the boy, thank him again, tell him he did the right thing and make sure he gets home safely. I'd write up what happened and tell my supervisor, in case the man complains."
What it shows: Human rights (privacy), respect, fairness, integrity and ownership in one answer. It challenges prejudice without lecturing and still serves the man.
Worked scenario 2: The woman with the suitcase at the station
Theme: Vulnerability and welfare at a railway station. Values most in play: Human rights, respect, integrity, fairness.
You are on foot patrol at a large railway station at about 10pm on a Sunday. A member of station staff asks for your help. A woman in her twenties is sitting on a bench with a large suitcase and a little girl of about three asleep on her lap. She has no ticket. The last train to the city where she says her sister lives leaves in 40 minutes. She has been crying and keeps checking her phone. What are your considerations and what would you do?
"I'd tell her she needs to buy a ticket or leave the station, because she can't wait there without one."
Why it is weaker: It treats a possible welfare emergency as a ticketing problem. A distressed adult with a small child late at night needs to be asked what is wrong before anything else.
"I'd want to know she and the child are safe. I'd go over calmly, introduce myself and ask if she's all right, keeping my voice low so I don't wake the girl. I'd ask the staff whether there's a quieter, warmer place we could talk. I'd ask open questions: where she's going, whether her sister is expecting her, whether something has happened tonight. I wouldn't assume anything from the suitcase or the tears. I'd let control know where I am. If it's simply money for a ticket, I'd ask the staff what options there are, because getting her to her sister might be the best outcome."
What it shows: Emotional awareness, respect and analysis: the officer gathers information before deciding. The child is noticed from the first sentence.
In a quiet office she tells you she left home tonight because her partner hit her yesterday and it is not the first time. Her phone keeps lighting up. She shows you a message from him: 'I know where you are. I'm coming to get my daughter.' She begs you not to write anything down. She just wants to get on the train. What are your considerations now?
"If she doesn't want to make a complaint there's nothing I can do, so I'd help her onto the train and wish her luck."
Why it is weaker: It ignores a direct threat that may be on its way to the station and a child who may be at risk. It also mistakes respecting her wishes for doing nothing.
"That changes things. Her safety and the child's come first and the message suggests he may be on his way, so I'd tell control straight away and ask for another officer. I'd listen, believe her and not judge her. I'd be honest that I can't promise to keep this to myself, because a child's safety is involved, but I'd explain what I have to do and why and keep her involved in every step. I'd tell her that there's specialist support for people in her situation and ask my supervisor for advice. Her plan to go to her sister may well be the safest option tonight, so I'd check the sister is expecting her and help make that work."
What it shows: Integrity (no false promise), human rights (protecting life), respect for her choices and collaboration. It shows the risk being re-assessed the moment the message appears.
A man arrives at the station office, calm and polite. He says he is the girl's father, that his partner has mental health problems and has taken their daughter without telling him. He shows you a photo of himself with the child and asks you to hand his daughter over. What do you do?
"He's the father and he seems reasonable, so I'd let him take her home while the mother calms down."
Why it is weaker: It decides on the spot between two accounts, based on how calm someone seems. It ignores an allegation of violence and a threatening message.
"I'd stay polite with him: he may be worried too and I haven't heard his side. But I wouldn't hand the child to anyone while there's an allegation of violence that hasn't been looked into. I also wouldn't tell him where his partner is. I'd keep them apart and make sure my colleague is with her. I'd tell control and my supervisor what's happening, because the decision about the child isn't one I should make alone in an office. I'd note what he says fairly, including his concern about her mental health, without taking either account at face value. And I'd record everything."
What it shows: Fairness to both adults, critical analysis of how a calm manner can mislead, the child's safety first and knowing when to involve a supervisor.
Worked scenario 3: The row at the gala
Theme: Community, fairness and diversity at a public event. Values most in play: Fairness, respect, integrity.
You are on foot patrol at a summer community gala in a town park. There are families, stalls and a bouncy castle run by volunteers. A volunteer steward waves you over. A father is shouting at him, red in the face. Nearby a boy of about 13 is crying and rocking back and forth. A queue of parents and young children is watching. What are your considerations and what would you do?
"I'd tell the father to calm down or he'll be asked to leave the gala."
Why it is weaker: It takes the steward's side before hearing anything, risks making the father angrier and ignores the boy, who is the most distressed person there.
"I'd go over calmly and make sure nobody is about to get hurt. I'd speak to the father first, quietly. I'd ask if we can step away from the queue so we can talk properly. The boy is clearly very upset, so I'd ask the father what helps him and whether he'd like to stay with him while we talk. I'd ask the steward to wait a moment so I can hear him too. I wouldn't decide anything until I'd heard both of them."
What it shows: Emotional awareness, respect for a distressed child and fairness. The officer lowers the temperature before trying to find out what happened.
The father tells you his son has a learning disability. He says the steward told the boy he was too old and too big to go on, then called him a name about his disability when he kept asking. The steward says he only enforced the age limit on the sign and never called anyone names. Two parents in the queue give you different versions. What are your considerations now?
"It's word against word, so there's nothing I can do. I'd tell them both to move on and enjoy the day."
Why it is weaker: It dismisses a possible disability-related insult without gathering any information. The father would leave feeling the police did not care.
"I'd take what the father says seriously. Being called a name because of a disability is hurtful and it's something I'd record properly, whatever the outcome. I'd separate the two issues: the age limit may well be a fair safety rule, but name-calling isn't. I'd take both accounts fairly and get the details of the two parents, because their versions matter even if they differ. I wouldn't decide who is right there and then. I'd explain to the father what I'm doing and check how his son is."
What it shows: Fairness, critical analysis (two issues, not one) and respect. The officer acts on a serious allegation without pre-judging the steward.
The gala organiser arrives. She says the family is 'causing a scene' and asks you to remove them from the park so the event can carry on. She adds that the steward is her nephew and has volunteered for years. What do you do?
"It's her event, so I'd ask the family to leave to keep the peace."
Why it is weaker: It punishes the people who raised a concern, in a public park, at the request of someone with a personal interest. That is neither fair nor proportionate.
"I'd acknowledge her worry about the event, but the family haven't done anything that would justify removing them and the father is calm now. I'd explain that politely. I'd also be honest that, because the steward is her nephew, it's important the complaint is looked at by someone independent, which is me. I'd suggest something practical: perhaps another volunteer runs the bouncy castle for a while so things can settle. I'd tell the family what happens next, record everything and make sure I follow up with the father as promised."
What it shows: Integrity and fairness under pressure, ownership and a practical idea that lets the event continue. It is firm without being rude.
Worked scenario 4: The inflatable on the loch
Theme: Public safety and emergencies. Values most in play: Human rights (protecting life), respect, integrity.
You are on mobile patrol on your own on a very hot Saturday afternoon near a busy loch-side beach. A woman runs to your car and points at the water. Two children, about seven and nine, are sitting on an inflatable unicorn. A breeze is pushing them away from the shore. They are about 100 metres out, getting further away and shouting. What are your considerations and what would you do?
"I'd take off my kit and swim out to get them."
Why it is weaker: It is brave but risky: cold open water can overwhelm strong swimmers and a third person in the water helps nobody. It also delays calling for help and leaves nobody in charge on the shore.
"I'd tell control straight away: the exact location and that two children are drifting on an inflatable. I'd ask for the emergency services that deal with water rescue and an ambulance. I wouldn't go into the water myself. I'd look for a life ring or throw line and keep my eyes on the children, asking someone to keep watching and pointing at them the whole time so we don't lose sight of them. I'd shout to the children to stay on the inflatable and hold on. If someone on the beach has a kayak or paddleboard and knows what they're doing, that might reach them sooner, but I wouldn't push anyone into danger. And I'd try to find their parents."
What it shows: Safety first, ownership (control told in the first sentence), critical analysis of the risks and calm leadership. No specialist knowledge is needed: it is common sense said clearly.
The children's father arrives, out of breath. You can smell alcohol on him. He says he is a strong swimmer and starts to wade in. Several people on the beach are filming. What are your considerations now?
"He's their dad, so it's his decision. I'd let him go."
Why it is weaker: It ignores a real risk to the father's life and does nothing to stop the incident getting worse. A good answer still treats him with compassion.
"He's terrified for his children, so I'd speak to him firmly but kindly. I'd tell him that cold water and alcohol could make him a casualty too and that help is on its way. I'd give him something useful to do: stand at the water's edge where the children can see him and keep shouting to them to hold on. I'd update control. If he goes in anyway I'd tell control there are now three people in the water. I wouldn't worry about the filming: people can film and I'd just stay calm and professional."
What it shows: Emotional awareness with a frightened parent, protecting life, ownership and composure in front of cameras.
A man in a kayak reaches the children and tows them back. Both are cold and frightened but talking. That evening, back at the station, a local community councillor phones. She says this is the third near miss on that beach this summer and asks what the police are going to do about it. What are your considerations and how do you respond?
"It's not really a police matter, it's for the council. I'd tell her to contact them."
Why it is weaker: It may be partly true, but it passes the problem on without any ownership and leaves a worried member of the public with nothing.
"At the beach I'd make sure the children were checked by the ambulance crew, warmed up and back with their parents. I'd thank the kayaker and take his details. With the councillor, I'd listen and take her concern seriously, because three near misses suggests a pattern. I'd be honest that I can't promise a solution myself, but I'd write it up and pass it to my sergeant and the local policing team. I'd ask her for details of the earlier incidents and mention that partners such as the council, who look after signs and safety equipment, may need to be part of it. Then I'd tell her when she'll hear back and make sure she does."
What it shows: We deliver, support and inspire (thinking past the incident), we are collaborative, ownership and integrity: no false promise, but a real follow-up.
Notice what the strong answers have in common. Each starts with safety or the most vulnerable person, says what is not yet known, gives a reason for each step, names who else would be involved and ends with a follow-up. None of them uses legal terms.
Common mistakes in SJE answers
These come from what the exercise is described as assessing, not from Police Scotland's marking guide, which it does not publish.
| Mistake | Why it costs you |
|---|---|
| Jumping straight to enforcement | "I'd arrest him" in the first sentence skips safety, information and people. Police Scotland says no legal knowledge is needed, so a law-first answer shows nothing extra. |
| Forgetting safety | If anyone could be hurt, say so first. It is the most common gap in practice answers. |
| Saying "the police would" | Say what you would do. "I'd ask for another officer" shows ownership; "the police would send someone" does not. |
| Not giving reasons | The reasoning is where the values and competencies show. Add "because..." to every important step. |
| Missing what changed | When a stage adds information, say what it changes before you say what you would do. |
| Starting from scratch each stage | Keep what still applies from your earlier answer. Restarting wastes time and can contradict yourself. |
| Promising what you cannot deliver | "I won't tell anyone" or "I'll make sure he's charged" are false promises. Honest reassurance is stronger. |
| Taking a side too early | Hear both accounts before deciding. Calm, polite people are not always telling the truth. |
| Handing everything to someone else | "I'd call my sergeant" is fine, but say what you would do while you wait and why you are calling them. |
| Rambling or reciting a method | Do not say "S for safety" out loud. Use the method in your head and speak naturally. |
| Copying the candidate before you | Give your own reasoning in your own words. See the group setting below. |
A two-week SJE practice plan
Short, regular practice out loud beats one long session. This plan uses the free taster and this page for the first week, then the pack in the second. If you do not buy the pack, repeat week one with the assessment day guide's nine scenarios and a friend.
| When | What to do | Free or pack |
|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | Read this page and the values table. Learn the five SIPOR prompts. Read Police Scotland's CVF level 1 behaviours. | Free |
| Day 2 | Free scenario 1 in the taster above with the words shown and a 3-minute timer. Mark yourself with the checklist or get AI feedback if signed in. | Free |
| Day 3 | Free scenario 2 with read-aloud on and a 2-minute timer. Note your two biggest gaps. | Free |
| Day 4 | Free scenario 3 in listen-only mode. Record yourself on your phone and listen back once. | Free |
| Day 5 | Work through the four worked scenarios below with a friend reading each stage aloud. Compare your answers with the strong answers. | Free |
| Day 6 | Ask a friend to read stages from the nine practice scenarios on our assessment day guide. Focus on saying what changed at each stage. | Free |
| Day 7 | Rest. Write down three habits you keep missing (for example safety, reasons, follow-up). | Free |
| Day 8 | Two or three pack scenarios from your weakest theme, read-aloud on, 2-minute timer. Read the model answers. | Pack |
| Day 9 | Two or three more, this time in listen-only mode. Check the progress tab for your weakest value. | Pack |
| Day 10 | Scenarios that test your weakest value. Drop the timer to 90 seconds to practise being concise. | Pack |
| Day 11 | A group task brief in the trainer: read under time, build the briefing plan, then answer the Q&A practice questions. | Pack |
| Day 12 | The 60-minute SJE mock, in a quiet room, start to finish without stopping. | Pack |
| Day 13 | Review the mock feedback. Redo your two weakest scenarios out loud. | Pack |
| Day 14 | One light scenario only. Check your invitation, plan your journey and rest. | Free |
Keep preparing for the group task and the interview alongside this. Our group task practice and interview questions pages cover them.
Practising out loud
The SJE is spoken and reactive. Reading model answers helps you understand what good looks like, but only speaking under a little pressure trains the skill. Three ways to do it:
| How | What to do |
|---|---|
| On your own | Turn on read-aloud and listen-only, so you hear the stage once and answer straight away, as on the day. Speak to an empty chair as if it were the assessor. Use a timer so you learn how long two minutes feels. |
| With a friend | Give them a scenario from this page. They read stage 1 aloud, wait for your full answer, then read stage 2. They tick the checklist as you speak. Swap roles: hearing someone else answer is close to the group setting. |
| Recording yourself | Record on your phone and listen back once. Count the times you say "the police would", note whether you mentioned safety first and check you gave a reason for each step. Do not re-record until it is perfect: the day is one take. |
Whichever you use, listen for three things: did you mention safety first if it mattered, did you give reasons and did you say what changed at each new stage? If those three are there, the rest usually follows.
Score your own practice
After each practice scenario, go through these questions honestly or ask the friend who played the assessor. They follow the values and competencies. They are a self-check, not Police Scotland's marking.
| Ask yourself | Linked to |
|---|---|
| Did I mention safety first, if anyone could be at risk? | Human rights, we analyse critically |
| Did I say what I did not know and how I would find out? | We analyse critically, fairness |
| Did I notice how the people involved were feeling and say how I would speak to them? | We are emotionally aware, respect |
| Did I say "I would" rather than "the police would"? | We take ownership |
| Did I give a reason for each important step? | We analyse critically |
| Did I say who else I would involve and why? | We are collaborative |
| Did I say what changed at each new stage and keep what still applied? | We analyse critically, we are innovative and open-minded |
| Did I avoid assuming who was to blame? | Fairness, we are innovative and open-minded |
| Did I avoid making a promise I could not keep? | Integrity |
| Did I think about what happens afterwards (follow-up, updates, prevention)? | We deliver, support and inspire |
Nerves and the group setting
The SJE is presented to your whole assessment group and each of you is asked individually. Police Scotland does not publish the order of answering or how many candidates are in a group, but because the scenarios are presented to the group you should be ready to hear other candidates answer before or after you.
If someone says your point first
- Say it anyway, in your own words. In our view, you can only be credited for what you say yourself. Leaving out safety because someone else mentioned it means you have not mentioned it.
- Add your own reasoning. The same action with a clearer "because" is still a good answer.
- Look for what was missed. If the first answers covered the incident, you might add the follow-up, the vulnerable person or who else to involve.
- Do not change a sound answer to sound different. Reaching the same conclusion as someone else is fine if it is right.
- Never criticise another candidate. Respect for colleagues is part of what you are showing.
Managing nerves
- Take a breath before you speak. A pause of a few seconds is normal and reads as thinking.
- Start with safety. Having a reliable first sentence stops a blank start.
- If you missed a detail, say what you are assuming ("I'm assuming nobody is injured; if they were, I'd...").
- Let a weak stage go. Each new stage is a fresh chance. Do not replay the last one in your head.
- Do not be thrown by others. A polished answer from someone else does not lower yours and a weak one does not raise it.
On the morning itself
- Arrive early. Check your invitation for the time, place and anything you must bring. Police Scotland's recruitment page does not list these.
- Use the ice breaker. It is not assessed, but it settles nerves and lets you meet your group.
- Listen to the whole stage. Do not start planning your answer halfway through: the last sentence is often the change.
- Keep each answer to the point. Say what matters most first, so a long answer is never needed to get the important points in.
- Keep the two exercises separate. Whatever happened in the other morning exercise, the SJE is a fresh chance across all the competencies.
Reasonable adjustments and AI
If you need reasonable adjustments for the assessment day, Police Scotland asks you to raise them on the eligibility form, the first part of the application before the main form. It asks you to give as much detail as you can about the support you need at each stage. It names neurodivergent conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, autism and ADHD. Police Scotland does not publish which specific adjustments it makes for the SJE, so describe what you find hard about a spoken exercise with no reading time and ask. Our Police Scotland hub has more on support.
Our tool's "show the words" and typed answers can help you practise, but they do not mean the same options exist on the day.
On AI, Police Scotland's guidance says the choice to use AI is yours, that people make every selection decision and that AI can support your preparation. It says not to rely on AI to write your application, not to present experiences that are not your own and not to use AI tools during virtual interviews. Our AI feedback is a practice aid of that kind. The assessment day exercises are in person, so on the day the thinking has to be yours.
What we could not verify
- How the SJE is scored. Police Scotland does not publish the scoring method, scale or pass mark. It also does not say what counts as successful in the morning.
- How many scenarios and stages. Not published. The 60 minutes is all Police Scotland states.
- How long you have for each answer. Not published. Our 90 second, 2 minute and 3 minute timers are practice settings.
- Group size, order of answering and whether you hear every other answer. Not published.
- Whether assessors repeat a stage or let you make notes. Not published.
- Whether the SJE is ever run online. The portal describes it as delivered verbally by assessors within your group. Assessment day venues are not published.
- Specific adjustments for the SJE. Police Scotland describes how to ask but not what it provides.
- The candidate portal sits behind a bot check; the portal details here are from our reading in a browser on 22 October 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Police Scotland situational judgement exercise?
A 60-minute spoken exercise on the morning of the Police Scotland assessment day. Assessors present unfolding, hypothetical policing scenarios to your assessment group out loud and ask each of you individually about your considerations and intended course of action. Police Scotland says it is a reactive exercise with no reading or comprehension time.
Is the Police Scotland SJE online or multiple choice?
No. Police Scotland describes it as delivered verbally by assessors within your assessment group, with each candidate answering individually. You explain your thinking out loud. It is different from the online, multiple-choice situational judgement test in the England and Wales National Sift.
How many scenarios are in the Police Scotland SJE?
Police Scotland does not publish how many scenarios or stages the exercise has. It says only that the exercise lasts 60 minutes and that the scenarios unfold. Treat any fixed number you see elsewhere with caution.
How long do I have to answer each stage?
Police Scotland does not publish an answer time. Our practice tool lets you choose 90 seconds, 2 minutes or 3 minutes per stage, but those are our practice settings, not Police Scotland's rules. Aim to be clear and complete rather than to fill a set time.
Do I need to know the law for the SJE?
No. Police Scotland says the exercises are set in a policing context but there is no requirement for any policing, legal or procedural knowledge. You are assessed against its Competency and Values Framework, so common sense, safety, fairness and clear reasoning matter more than legal terms.
What does considerations and intended course of action mean?
Considerations are what you are weighing up: risks, who is affected or vulnerable, what you know and do not know and what the values ask of you. Your intended course of action is what you would actually do, in order, with reasons. A good answer covers both out loud.
What if another candidate says my point before me?
Give your own full answer anyway, in your own words and with your own reasons. Reaching the same conclusion is fine. Do not drop an important point just because someone else made it, do not change a sound answer just to sound different and never criticise another candidate.
How is the Police Scotland SJE scored and what is the pass mark?
Police Scotland does not publish how the exercise is scored, the scoring scale or a pass mark. It says all its competencies and values are assessed across the assessment day and that only candidates who are successful in the morning go on to the afternoon interview.
Can I get reasonable adjustments for the SJE?
Police Scotland asks you to raise reasonable adjustment needs on the eligibility form, the first part of the application, with as much detail as you can. It names neurodivergent conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, autism and ADHD. It does not publish which specific adjustments it makes for each exercise.
Can I use AI to prepare for the SJE?
Police Scotland's AI guidance says the choice to use AI is yours, that people make every selection decision and that AI can support your preparation. It says not to use AI tools during virtual interviews and not to present experiences that are not your own. The assessment day exercises are in person, so on the day it is just you.
Are your SJE scenarios real Police Scotland scenarios?
No. Every scenario, answer and checklist on this page and in our pack is original PolicePay practice material written to the format Police Scotland publishes. Police Scotland does not publish its scenarios or marking guide and does not endorse any study materials.
Sources and how we checked them
Every factual claim on this page was written from the sources below, read on 22 October 2026. Rules and figures change, so check the source for the date you are reading this. Where we could not confirm something from an official or independent source, the page says so rather than guessing. Spotted something out of date? See our corrections policy.
- Police Scotland: Our recruitment process (police officer) : assessment day exercises; SJE 60 minutes; reactive, no reading or comprehension time; no policing, legal or procedural knowledge needed; all competencies and values assessed across the day (accessed 22 October 2026)
- Police Scotland candidate portal: Police officer selection process : SJE presented verbally to the assessment group, candidates asked individually about considerations and intended course of action; morning gate before the afternoon interview (read in a browser 22 October 2026; the portal sits behind a bot check) (accessed 22 October 2026)
- Police Scotland candidate portal: Reasonable adjustments and support : adjustments raised on the eligibility form; neurodivergent conditions named; SJE described per exercise; interview face to face (accessed 22 October 2026)
- Police Scotland: Competency and Values Framework (PDF) : the six competencies at level 1 and the values of integrity, fairness, respect and human rights (accessed 22 October 2026)
- Police Scotland: AI guidance for applicants : AI as a support tool; people make selection decisions; not during virtual interviews (accessed 22 October 2026)
On this topic elsewhere
More in this guide series
More for applicants and Scottish officers
Disclaimer
PolicePay.co.uk is an independent guide. It is not affiliated with Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority or the College of Policing. It does not recruit, test or assess applicants. Our practice questions are original PolicePay material, not official Police Scotland questions. Police Scotland sets and changes its own selection process, so check its recruitment pages and your candidate account before relying on anything here. Details are as checked on 22 October 2026.