The tragic case of Henry Nowak has prompted significant discussion about police decision-making, assumptions, and accountability. Much of that discussion has focused on the actions of individual officers. Yet one of the most important lessons may lie elsewhere: the role of peer intervention.
Reports from the incident suggest that while officers were dealing with Henry, who repeatedly stated that he had been stabbed, one female officer questioned whether his claims should be dismissed and sought to redirect attention towards the possibility of a serious injury. It is accepted that her intervention ultimately didn’t alter the outcome, it provides an important example of something policing increasingly needs to recognise, train and support: the ability of colleagues to challenge assumptions and speak up when they believe something may be wrong.
This is what active bystandership and peer intervention are all about.
More Than Challenging Misconduct
As I saw often, peer intervention reaches far beyond addressing bad behaviour. Currently when many people hear the phrase “peer intervention,” they immediately think about challenging unethical behaviour or misconduct. While this is undoubtedly important, it represents only part of the picture.
Peer intervention is any action taken by a colleague to prevent harm.
That harm may arise from misconduct, but it can also arise from mistakes, misunderstandings, cognitive biases, communication failures or flawed assumptions.
In high-pressure environments such as policing, officers are constantly required to make rapid decisions based on incomplete information. Most of the time they do so successfully. However, the very pressures that make policing difficult can also create conditions where errors occur. The question is not whether mistakes are possible. The question is whether colleagues feel able to identify them and intervene before harm occurs.
The Power of Assumptions
One of the most striking aspects of the Henry Nowak case is the apparent influence of assumptions. Like all human beings, police officers rely on mental shortcuts to make sense of complex situations. These shortcuts allow decisions to be made quickly but can sometimes lead people down the wrong path. Once a particular interpretation of events takes hold, individuals often begin looking for evidence that supports it while overlooking information that contradicts it. Psychologists refer to this as confirmation bias.
If officers arrive at an incident believing they understand what has happened, they may unintentionally filter new information through that existing belief. The danger is not that officers are careless or malicious.
The danger is that they are human.
In the Nowak case, repeated statements about being stabbed appear to have conflicted with the dominant understanding of events. When contradictory information emerges, it is often uncomfortable. It requires people to pause, reassess and consider whether they may have misunderstood the situation.
This is where peer intervention becomes critical.
The Importance of the Dissenting Voice
History shows that many tragedies, disasters and organisational failures share a common feature. Someone noticed something. Someone had concerns. Someone spoke up. But the concern was not fully explored, supported or acted upon.
The female officer’s apparent intervention is significant because it represents a challenge to the prevailing narrative. By encouraging colleagues to reconsider the possibility of a stabbing injury, she demonstrated a willingness to question assumptions rather than simply accept them. Effective teams depend on these voices.
In aviation, healthcare, the military and other safety-critical professions, considerable effort has been invested in creating environments where team members can challenge decisions regardless of rank or status.
Research consistently shows that organisations become safer when individuals are encouraged to speak up about concerns. The same principle applies to policing.
I recently visited a Royal Air Force air traffic control centre. I discussed this type of culture with a member of staff. He confidently told me that this is the unwritten rule. Rank is left outside. All know that they have a responsibility to address mistakes and the culture supported that.
Speaking Up Is Not Enough
One of the lessons from active bystandership research is that speaking up alone is not always sufficient. Interventions must be heard. They must be taken seriously, and organisations must create cultures where challenge is welcomed rather than resisted.
Many officers understand the importance of raising concerns. The difficulty often lies in overcoming the social pressures that discourage intervention.
Nobody wants to appear difficult. Nobody wants to undermine a colleague. Nobody wants to be seen as lacking confidence in the judgement of others. These pressures are particularly powerful in tightly bonded teams where trust and solidarity are highly valued. Yet professionalism sometimes requires discomfort. Professional courage is not only about confronting danger. It is also about being willing to say:
“I think we need to check that again.”
“Something doesn’t feel right.”
“What if we’ve got this wrong?”
Those simple questions can save lives.
Why Every Police Officer Needs Peer Intervention Skills
Peer intervention should not be viewed as a specialist skill reserved for supervisors or professional standards departments. It is a frontline safety skill. Every officer, regardless of rank, should understand how to:
- Recognise emerging risks.
- Challenge assumptions respectfully.
- Voice concerns confidently.
- Support colleagues who raise concerns.
- Reassess situations when new information emerges.
These skills are essential because policing is fundamentally a team activity. Rarely does a single officer possess all available information.
Safety often depends upon multiple perspectives being brought together to create a more complete understanding of events. When officers are empowered to challenge each other constructively, decision-making improves. When they remain silent, errors can compound.
Building a Culture of Intervention
Training alone is not enough. Officers may learn intervention techniques in a classroom, but whether they use them depends largely on organisational culture. Leaders play a critical role in shaping that culture. They set the tone by how they respond when challenged. If supervisors become defensive or dismissive when colleagues raise concerns, silence quickly becomes the norm.
If leaders actively invite challenge, thank people for speaking up and demonstrate a willingness to reconsider decisions, intervention becomes part of everyday practice.
The most effective teams do not see challenge as criticism. They see it as protection. Protection for colleagues. Protection for the public. Protection against error.
As well as leaders actively inviting challenge, colleagues can do similar. This can be led by supervisors and agreed by all in a team. When this occurs, we truly affirm trust in each other to act when we observe any form of harm.
The Bigger Lesson
The Henry Nowak case is ultimately about far more than one incident. It highlights the reality that even skilled and well-intentioned professionals can become influenced by assumptions, group dynamics and cognitive biases. None of us are immune. That is precisely why active bystandership matters. The strongest safeguard against human error is often another human being. A colleague who asks a question. A colleague who notices something others have missed. A colleague who is willing to speak up.
The future of policing depends not only on developing technically competent officers but also on creating cultures where peer intervention is expected, supported and valued. Because sometimes the most important act of courage is not running towards danger. It is raising a hand and saying: “Can we stop for a moment and make sure we’re getting this right?”
That simple act may be the difference between harm and safety, between failure and success, and in some cases, between life and death.
grahamgoulden.com 