Operational policing and decision-making
This domain tests operational decision-making: applying the National Decision Model, assessing threat, harm and risk, selecting proportionate options, recording your rationale, and reviewing as circumstances change. It is not a test of recalling every power; it is a test of structured judgment under pressure.
Core rules and concepts
- The NDM stages are: gather information and intelligence; assess threat, harm and risk; consider powers and policy; identify options and contingencies; act; review. It is continuous, not a one-off form.
- THRIVE supports prioritisation: Threat, Harm, Risk, Investigation opportunities, Vulnerability and Engagement. Vulnerability includes repeat victims, mental ill health, coercion and dependency.
- Proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary (PLAN) is a useful check for use of force and enforcement.
- Record the decision, the information relied on, options rejected and the review trigger. Contemporaneous notes and decision logs protect the decision and the organisation.
- Golden-hour actions-preserve life, secure scenes, identify witnesses and preserve evidence-can be decisive.
- Command requires a clear mission, allocated tasks, confirmed understanding, maintained situational awareness and avoidance of doing subordinates' jobs.
Worked example
A man in distress is on a bridge. Using the NDM: information is limited; threat, harm and risk include a fall, traffic and self-harm; vulnerability is high. Powers and policy put care and safety first; consider a Mental Health Act assessment, not automatic arrest. Options include road closure, cordon, trained negotiator, ambulance and family contact; enforcement only if necessary and proportionate. You brief with clear tasks, set review points and record why you rejected an immediate grab. If he moves, you review the decision.
Traps that cost marks
- Jumping to enforcement because it feels decisive.
- Treating risk as something to eliminate rather than manage.
- Failing to record the 'why'.
- Not reviewing when facts change.
- Confusing lawful with ethical or proportionate.