SJT Courage
Scenarios
Two original situational judgement test scenarios that turn on courage: speaking up about a colleague's joke and owning up to an error in your notes. Rate each action, check our model ratings and see how courage shows up across the sift and the later interview.
Independent information, not advice · Sources checked 21 October 2026 · England and Wales unless stated
Rate highest the actions that deal with the problem promptly, directly and proportionately: a private word with the colleague, or owning up to your error through the proper route. Rate lowest the actions that collude, cover up or humiliate. Rate each action on its own as your first response; two actions can share a rating.
Original PolicePay practice scenarios in the format of the College of Policing national sift. They are not College questions and our ratings are not the College's answer key, which is not published. Scoring follows the site's free SJT practice: an exact match scores in full, one point off two thirds, two points off one third.
Scenario 1: The joke in the canteen
Rate each action as your first response. You can give the same rating to more than one action.
Free sample scenario
The joke in the canteen
You are a new police constable. In the canteen, an experienced colleague makes a joke about a member of the public's religion. Others laugh. A member of police staff at the next table looks uncomfortable and leaves.
Rate each action on its own, from 1 (Counterproductive) to 5 (Very effective). You can give the same rating to more than one action.
Rate all four actions to check your answers.
What courage means in the 2024 framework
Courage is one of three values in the College of Policing's 2024 Competency and Values Framework, alongside respect and empathy and public service. They come from the ethical policing principles in the Code of Ethics. In plain English, our paraphrase of the framework:
- doing the right thing when circumstances make it difficult;
- making decisions, communicating them and standing behind them;
- challenging unprofessional behaviour and all forms of prejudice and discrimination;
- being open and honest about what you did and why and keeping promises;
- responding to criticism professionally and accepting scrutiny.
It is mostly ethical courage. Physical bravery is not what the framework describes. Values have no levels, so a new applicant is expected to show the same courage as an experienced officer, in their own setting.
Where courage fits in the national sift
The College's sift guidance is precise: the situational judgement test assesses the six competencies and the behavioural styles questionnaire assesses the six competencies plus the three values. So courage is formally assessed in the BSQ, not the SJT.
In practice, many SJT scenarios still turn on courage-type choices, because the competencies overlap with it. Owning up to an error is "we take ownership"; challenging a colleague kindly is "we are emotionally aware"; checking a record is "we analyse critically". Practising courage scenarios trains judgement that the SJT does reward. For the BSQ, the College's advice is simply to answer honestly.
Scenario 1 explained: The joke in the canteen
You are a new police constable. In the canteen, an experienced colleague makes a joke about a member of the public's religion. Others laugh. A member of police staff at the next table looks uncomfortable and leaves.
| Action | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Laugh along so you fit in, then say nothing later because you are new. | 1 Counterproductive | Joining in signals the behaviour is acceptable and leaves the staff member unsupported. Being new does not change what courage asks of you. |
| Later, tell the colleague privately why the joke was not acceptable. | 5 Very effective | Challenging promptly and privately is direct and proportionate. It names the behaviour without humiliating anyone. |
| Check on the staff member who left and ask if they are all right. | 4 Effective | Supporting the person affected is a reasonable, caring action. On its own it does not address the behaviour itself. |
| Tell everyone at the table loudly that they should be ashamed of themselves. | 2 Ineffective | The intention is right but a public telling-off is likely to cause defensiveness and makes a calm conversation harder. |
Notice two things. The best action is not the longest or the most dramatic: it is prompt, private and direct. And checking on the staff member is rated Effective, not Very effective: it is a good, caring action, but on its own it does not deal with the behaviour. Many candidates rate kind but incomplete actions too highly or too low; Effective is often the right home for them.
Scenario 2: The wrong time in your notes
This one is about honesty under pressure. Rate each action on its own.
Free sample scenario
The wrong time in your notes
You realise the time you wrote in your notes for an arrest is 20 minutes out. A colleague's statement, already submitted, uses the correct time. Your sergeant has not noticed the difference.
Rate each action on its own, from 1 (Counterproductive) to 5 (Very effective). You can give the same rating to more than one action.
Rate all four actions to check your answers.
The key distinction: telling your sergeant now is Very effective, while noting it to raise later is only Slightly effective, because the wrong time could be relied on in the meantime. Asking a colleague to change an accurate statement to match yours would make things much worse. Integrity in records is not a matter of size.
Courage patterns to look for
| Situation | Usually rated high | Usually rated low |
|---|---|---|
| Offensive or discriminatory behaviour | Prompt, calm challenge; support for the person affected; reporting if it continues or is serious | Joining in, ignoring it, public humiliation |
| Your own mistake | Owning it now, through the proper route | Hiding it, delaying, asking others to cover |
| Pressure to cut a corner | Declining and explaining why; checking the correct process | Going along to fit in |
| An unpopular but right decision | Making it, explaining it, standing by it | Changing it because people complain |
These are patterns, not rules. The details of each scenario decide the rating.
Sift and recruitment alerts
Know when the sift or the application windows change
Forces open and close recruitment windows without much notice, and the national sift can change. Leave your email and we will tell you when forces open applications and when the sift or the entry rules change. Occasional emails, written by hand. Unsubscribe any time.
Sent by a person when there is news, not on a schedule. Unsubscribe any time. See our privacy policy.
Rating traps in courage scenarios
- Equating courage with confrontation. Loud, public challenges usually make situations worse. Courage is doing the right thing, calmly.
- Being new as an excuse. Values have no levels. A new officer is still expected to speak up.
- Overrating "tell the supervisor" for everything. Sometimes the best first step is a direct word; for serious matters, reporting is right.
- Underrating partial actions. Supporting the person affected helps even if it does not end the behaviour: often Effective.
- Ranking. Two actions can share a rating. Judge each on its own.
Courage later in the process
In the online assessment process, the College lists courage as one of the five areas the competency-based interview assesses. Expect a question about a time you challenged something, gave difficult news or made an unpopular decision, or how you would handle that in future. The same judgement applies: prompt, direct, proportionate and honest.
Our courage interview answers page has example structures and the free interview in the full timed OAC mock opens with a courage question.
More practice
- Respect and empathy scenarios and public service scenarios: two free each.
- The rate, don't rank trainer: eight scenarios with shared ratings.
- The free SJT practice: more scenarios with a results breakdown.
Scenario 2 explained: The wrong time in your notes
You realise the time you wrote in your notes for an arrest is 20 minutes out. A colleague's statement, already submitted, uses the correct time. Your sergeant has not noticed the difference.
| Action | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Leave it, because the difference is small and nobody has noticed. | 1 Counterproductive | An inaccurate record left uncorrected can undermine the case and your credibility. Honesty about records matters most when it is uncomfortable. |
| Tell your sergeant about the error now and ask how to correct it. | 5 Very effective | Owning the mistake openly and correcting it through the proper route is exactly what is needed. |
| Ask your colleague to change their statement so the times match. | 1 Counterproductive | Asking someone to alter an accurate record to cover your error would make things far worse. |
| Make a note of the error and raise it the next time you see your sergeant. | 3 Slightly effective | You intend to be honest, but waiting risks the wrong time being relied on in the meantime. |
Two actions share Counterproductive here, which is a reminder that the scale is not a ranking. Hiding the error and asking a colleague to change their statement both make things worse, in different ways.
Scenario 3: The friend asking for a favour
A pressure many new officers meet: a personal request to misuse police information. Rate each action.
Free sample scenario
The friend asking for a favour
You are a probationer constable. A friend from school messages you asking you to look up whether a new neighbour has a criminal record, because she is worried about her children's safety.
Rate each action on its own, from 1 (Counterproductive) to 5 (Very effective). You can give the same rating to more than one action.
Rate all four actions to check your answers.
| Action | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Do the check quietly, because she is only trying to protect her children. | 1 Counterproductive | Using police systems for a personal request is a serious misuse of information, whatever the motive. |
| Explain you cannot look it up and tell her how to apply to the child sex offender disclosure scheme. | 5 Very effective | Honest, clear and helpful: it refuses the misuse and points her to the proper route. |
| Ignore the message and hope she does not ask again. | 2 Ineffective | It avoids the misuse but leaves her worried and without help. She may ask again. |
| Tell your sergeant about the request so it is on record. | 4 Effective | Reasonable and open, especially if pressure continues; on its own it does not answer your friend. |
The proper route exists: in England and Wales a parent can ask the police, under the child sex offender disclosure scheme, whether someone with access to their children has a record for child sexual offences. Pointing your friend to it is both honest and genuinely helpful. Courage here is saying no to a friend and still helping.
The five-point scale, applied to courage
How the College's definitions tend to map onto courage-type actions (our illustrations, not College examples):
| Rating | College definition | Typical courage-type action |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Counterproductive | An inappropriate action that will have a negative impact or make the situation worse. | Joining in with offensive behaviour; covering up an error; misusing information for a friend. |
| 2 Ineffective | A poor action which will not help to resolve the situation. | Saying nothing and hoping it stops; a loud public telling-off that makes people defensive. |
| 3 Slightly effective | An action that will have a small positive impact on the situation. | Intending to raise a problem later rather than now. |
| 4 Effective | A reasonable action that will help to resolve the situation. | Supporting the person affected; telling a supervisor about a request. |
| 5 Very effective | One of the best actions that could be taken to resolve the situation. | A prompt, private, direct challenge; owning an error through the proper route now. |
A courage checklist for any SJT scenario
- Is someone behaving in a way that is unprofessional, unfair or discriminatory? Actions that ignore it rate low.
- Is there a record, statement or system involved? Accuracy and proper use beat convenience.
- Is the action prompt? "Later" is usually weaker than "now".
- Is it proportionate? Calm and private usually beats loud and public.
- Does it involve the right person when the matter is serious?
- Have I rated each action on its own, using the same rating twice where it fits?
What we could not verify
- The College's answer key. Our ratings are reasoned judgement against the published scale and framework.
- How many real SJT scenarios involve courage-type choices. The College does not publish its scenarios.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is courage in the police competency and values framework?
Courage is one of the three values in the College of Policing's 2024 framework. It is about doing the right thing when it is difficult: making and standing by decisions, challenging unprofessional or discriminatory behaviour, being open and honest about what you did and accepting scrutiny.
Does the national sift SJT assess courage?
Not directly. The College's sift guidance says the SJT assesses the six competencies and the behavioural styles questionnaire assesses the competencies plus the three values, including courage. Many SJT scenarios still turn on courage-type choices, such as whether to speak up, which is why practising them helps.
What does a courage SJT scenario look like?
Typically a situation where the easy option is to stay quiet or go along with something: a colleague's offensive joke, an error in a record, a shortcut that breaks the rules. You rate four possible first responses from counterproductive to very effective.
Is challenging someone publicly very effective in the SJT?
Usually not as a first response. Speaking up is right, but a public telling-off often makes people defensive and the situation worse. A prompt, private, direct conversation, or reporting through the right route, is usually rated higher.
Should I report everything to a supervisor in the SJT?
Not automatically. Reporting is often reasonable, but for minor issues dealing with it directly first can be better. For serious conduct, integrity issues or risk to people, telling a supervisor is usually right. Read the scenario for how serious it is.
Are these the real national sift questions?
No. Both scenarios are original PolicePay practice material in the sift's format. The ratings are our reasoned judgement, not the College's answer key, which is not published.
Where else is courage assessed in police recruitment?
In the online assessment process, the College lists courage as one of the five areas the competency-based interview assesses. Expect a question about doing the right thing when it was difficult.
How do I practise more courage scenarios?
The site's free SJT practice has more original scenarios with model ratings. National Sift Prep adds a larger bank with drills by value for 90 days.
What if a friend asks me to look someone up on police systems?
Refuse. Using police systems for a personal request is a misuse of information, whatever the reason. If the worry is about children's safety, parents can apply to the police under the child sex offender disclosure scheme. In an SJT, actions that misuse information rate as counterproductive.
How many courage scenarios are there on this page?
Three original scenarios: a colleague's offensive joke, an error in your own notes and a friend asking you to misuse police information. Each has model ratings and explanations.
Sources and how we checked them
Every factual claim on this page was written from the sources below, read on 21 October 2026. Rules and figures change, so check the source for the date you are reading this. Where we could not confirm something from an official or independent source, the page says so rather than guessing. Spotted something out of date? See our corrections policy.
- College of Policing: National sift candidate guidance (May 2026 PDF; page updated 1 June 2026) : SJT assesses the six competencies; BSQ assesses the competencies and the three values; rating scale and definitions; rate each action independently as a first response (accessed 21 October 2026)
- College of Policing: Competency and values framework : courage as a 2024 value (accessed 21 October 2026)
- College of Policing: Ethical policing principles : courage as one of the three principles of the Code of Ethics (accessed 21 October 2026)
- College of Policing: Online assessment process candidate guide (updated 21 July 2026) : courage assessed in the competency-based interview (accessed 21 October 2026)
- GOV.UK: Find out if a person has a record for child sexual offences : the child sex offender disclosure scheme, the proper route in scenario 3 (accessed 21 October 2026)
On this topic elsewhere
More in this guide series
Free tools for applicants
Disclaimer
PolicePay.co.uk is an independent guide. It is not affiliated with the College of Policing, the Home Office or any police force and it does not recruit, vet or assess applicants. Recruitment standards, assessment formats and vetting decisions are set by the College of Policing and each force and change from time to time: check the force you are applying to before relying on anything here. Details apply to England and Wales unless stated. Details are as checked on 21 October 2026.