A DRAFT report by Scotland's police oversight body buried the fact the rate of stop and searches in Scotland is almost nine times higher than in New York.
The Scottish Police Authority (SPA) document into the controversial policy also deleted multiple references to an academic study that was critical of the single force's use of the powers.
There has seen 400 per cent year-on-year rise in people being stopped and searched in some council areas such as Fife, with particularly criticism of the stop and search of young children.
The SPA published the document following a review of stop and search in May. However, an earlier version of the document had contained a table comparing the scale of the use of the powers by the force, the Metropolitan Police and the New York Police Department (NYPD).
The total number of searches carried out per 10,000 people between April and December last year by the NYPD was 110.6. However, Police Scotland's figure was 979.6. The comparison did to appear in the final document.
The table also showed that the rate of stop and search, per 10,000 individuals, was nearly three times higher for Police Scotland than the Metropolitan Police.
The single force figures included all statutory and non-statutory searches, whereas the London force only carries out statutory frisks. In the final report, Police Scotland's non-statutory searches were stripped out, an omission that ensured its figures were in line with the Met's.
The draft had concluded that stop and search was "significantly higher" in Scotland than for the Met and NYPD policing areas.
An independent report by academic Kath Murray was in the draft, but not the final version. It called for a review of stop and search on children and for clarification of the policy's primary aim.
Graeme Pearson, Labour's shadow justice spokesman, said the SPA was tasked with providing transparency about policing.
He added: "These deletions ... reflect the authority's high-handed approach to the public's right to know."
An SPA spokesman said the report's authors felt a comparison with New York was questionable, and the Met's was more relevant.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article