The second voice

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: in 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 were being appropriately considered and sought to redirect attention towards the possibility of a serious injury.

That her intervention did not ultimately alter the outcome makes it no less significant. It provides a powerful 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.

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 — harm that may arise from misconduct, but equally 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 — what psychologists call confirmation bias.

If officers arrive at an incident believing they understand what has happened, they may unintentionally filter new information through that existing belief. Henry Nowak’s repeated statements about being stabbed appear to have conflicted with the dominant understanding of events at the scene. When contradictory information emerges in that context, it is often uncomfortable. It requires people to pause, reassess, and consider whether they may have misunderstood the situation.

The danger is not that officers are careless or malicious. The danger is that they are human. This is precisely where peer intervention becomes critical.

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. Hillsborough. Mid Staffordshire. The Daniel Morgan inquiry. In each case, the record shows colleagues who sensed that something was wrong but whose interventions were dismissed, deflected, or simply not heard.

The female officer’s apparent challenge at the Nowak scene is significant because it represents exactly this dynamic — a willingness to question the prevailing narrative rather than simply accept it. Effective teams depend on these voices.

In aviation, healthcare, and the military, 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, yet the culture that enables it remains underdeveloped in far too many forces.

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. 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 them from doing so. 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.

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 be trained to recognise emerging risks, challenge assumptions constructively, voice concerns with confidence, support colleagues who raise concerns, and reassess situations when new information emerges.

Policing is fundamentally a team activity. Rarely does a single officer possess all available information. Safety often depends on multiple perspectives being brought together to create a more complete picture of events. When officers are empowered to challenge each other constructively, decision-making improves. When they remain silent, errors compound.

Training alone is not enough. Officers may learn intervention techniques in a classroom, but whether they use them depends largely on organisational culture. Leaders 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, acknowledge concerns, and demonstrate a willingness to reconsider decisions, intervention becomes part of everyday practice.

The most effective teams do not experience challenge as criticism. They experience it as protection — protection for colleagues, protection for the public, protection against error. That shared understanding can be built explicitly: agreed by a team, led by a supervisor, embedded in how officers work together from the start of every shift.

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 captured by assumptions, group dynamics, and cognitive bias. 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, notices something others have missed, and is willing to speak up.

The future of policing depends not only on developing technically competent officers but 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.

Graham Goulden is a former Scottish police officer, international speaker and violence prevention trainer. He now works with policing in US, UK and with British Overseas Territories. He also delivers similar inputs across public and private sector institutions