21 Years: The Minimum Term at the Heart of Henry Nowak's Murder Appeal
Prosecutors argue the sentence ignored false racism claims and the misuse of a religious knife exemption, while the defense calls for restraint in sentencing.
By Lina Lewis ·
The legal system in England and Wales allows for sentence reviews when new information emerges or when a penalty is deemed legally inconsistent. That process is currently underway for Vickrum Digwa, who was convicted of murdering an 18-year-old student in a street attack in Southampton.
The first point of contention concerns the sentence length. Digwa was jailed for life with a minimum term of 21 years in June. The attorney general, Ellie Reeves, has referred this term to the court of appeal, labeling it "unduly lenient." In written submissions, Jonathan Polnay KC, representing Reeves, stated that the original sentence failed to fully account for the combined weight of several aggravating factors. He argued that the minimum term did not adequately reflect the severity of the crime and the specific behaviors of the offender.
The second point focuses on the weapon used in the attack. Digwa carried two blades: a kirpan, which is a religious requirement for practicing Sikhs, and a large dagger associated with his membership in the Nihang order. Polnay told the court that Digwa abused the statutory religious exemption that permits Sikhs to carry a kirpan in public. The prosecutor described the dagger as a "substantial bladed weapon" that was immediately available for use against an unarmed victim. He characterized the use of the dagger as analogous to an abuse of trust, noting that the weapon was deployed repeatedly.
The third point involves Digwa's actions immediately after the murder. When police arrived at the scene, Digwa claimed that Nowak had racially abused him and knocked his turban off. Police officers initially arrested and handcuffed Nowak based on this account before discovering his fatal injuries. Polnay cited Digwa's "sustained attempts to pervert the course of justice" and his deception of first responders. The prosecutor also noted that Digwa filmed the dying victim, a factor described as a degradation of the deceased.
Digwa's mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was also convicted in connection with the case. She was jailed for three years for assisting an offender. Her role involved taking the knife from the murder scene back to the family home. The prosecution included this act of concealment in its list of aggravating factors. Digwa himself is serving his sentence at HMP Frankland in County Durham. He attended the hearing wearing a dark suit, shirt, and tie.
Imran Khan KC, representing Digwa, argued that the sentence should be increased only in exceptional cases where the sentencing judge made a gross error. He questioned where that error lay, pointing out that Judge William Mousley KC had already aggravated the sentence for the dangerous weapon and the abuse of religious privilege. Khan acknowledged that the law allowing Digwa to carry a knife did not permit him to use it for murder. However, he contended that carrying a knife for religious reasons should not automatically result in longer sentences for Sikh offenders. He further argued that while Digwa's false account affected how Nowak was treated, it did not change the fact that the wounds were unsurvivable.
The hearing is before Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, Mr Justice Nicklin, and Mr Justice Wall. It is scheduled to conclude on Thursday. The court will determine whether the 21-year minimum term stands or if it is adjusted based on the arguments presented by both sides.
