The critique against the Anti-Racism Commitment in policing is viewed as an attempt to politicize rather than scrutinize. Chris Philp, the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, asserts that “two-tier policing is endangering lives.” He links Henry Nowak’s tragic murder to other serious incidents and accuses the Commitment of being influenced by “extreme activists.”
Philp’s argument of “two-tier” policing implies distrust towards addressing racial inequality. Moreover, his criticism would be more impactful had he engaged with the initiative during his tenure as Policing Minister.
Over a five-year span, I led the Independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board, which evaluated the Police Race Action Plan aimed at enhancing policing for Black individuals, especially concerning the use of force. Statistics reveal alarming disparities: Black men face a sevenfold higher risk of death post-police restraint, Black individuals are five times more likely to be targeted with a taser, and Black children are eight times more prone to strip searches.
While we frequently criticized the Police Race Action Plan for its lethargic pace, structure, metrics, communication, and engagement, we emphasized the importance of subjecting anti-racism efforts to scrutiny. In contrast, Philp failed to interact with the Race Action Plan team, collaborate with my Board, or contribute to enhancing its effectiveness.
Philp’s disapproval of the Police’s Anti-racism Commitment, which was introduced in March 2025 with a foreword by Labour’s Policing Minister, Diana Johnson, could have been addressed during his tenure by seeking clarification, challenging the language, and advocating for clearer directives. However, he did not take any such actions.
Despite its imperfections, the Commitment resulted from collaborative efforts involving the Action Plan team, anti-racism experts, community representatives, policing organizations, and oversight bodies. It aims to address the challenge of tackling racial inequality within policing without ignoring its existence.
Philp misinterprets the Commitment’s emphasis on racial equity as advocating differential treatment based on skin color. However, the section he references actually urges the police to acknowledge diverse needs and experiences, including those influenced by race, to minimize harm and ensure equitable treatment.
If police lapses in Henry Nowak’s case are confirmed, they exemplify the type of poor judgment that anti-racist policing seeks to prevent. Anti-racism endeavors aim to promote evidence-based and transparent policing. For instance, the initiative played a key role in formulating national guidelines on body-worn video usage, leading to a majority of forces recording audio alongside video in their camera’s pre-record function.
Various anti-racism groups and civil society organizations have persistently challenged inadequate decision-making, weak accountability, and the unequal impact of state harm, advocating for improved policing practices. For instance, INQUEST has dedicated years to supporting bereaved families post-custody deaths and advocating for reforms in restraint techniques, healthcare provisions, crisis responses, and accountability measures.
The primary focus of such efforts is harm prevention rather than justification. Mishandling an unverified racial abuse report, neglecting Henry’s medical needs, or treating him as a suspect when protection was warranted does not align with anti-racist policing principles; it simply signifies substandard policing practices.
It is simpler to dismiss “so-called anti-racist campaigners” through rhetoric or parliamentary outcries than to engage with grieving families, substantial evidence, and state-induced harm. The former requires mere rhetoric, while the latter demands a serious commitment.
Abandoning anti-racism commitments due to misconceptions following Henry Nowak’s tragedy would be an erroneous response. The appropriate course of action entails conducting a thorough investigation into the police’s handling of the situation, identifying any shortcomings, and ensuring officers are better prepared to assess evidence, risks, and vulnerabilities in the future.
Individuals who previously held influential positions regarding such initiatives should exercise caution when suddenly assuming the role of staunch critics. Post-event certainty is facile; genuine scrutiny demands diligence and dedication.
