The attorney general has asked the court of appeal to increase the minimum 21-year sentence imposed on Vickrum Digwa for murdering 18-year-old Henry Nowak, arguing the term failed to account for “significant aggravating factors” including a false accusation of racism against the victim and abuse of a religious exemption to carry a knife.
Digwa, 23, was jailed for life in June with a minimum of 21 years for murdering Nowak in an attack in Southampton last December. When police arrived at the scene, Digwa falsely claimed Nowak had racially abused him and knocked his turban off, leading officers to arrest and handcuff Nowak before they saw his fatal injuries. The incident sparked riots in Southampton.
At Thursday’s hearing, Jonathan Polnay KC, representing Attorney General Ellie Reeves, said the sentence was “unduly lenient”. He pointed to Digwa’s “false allegation of racism against the deceased” and argued Digwa had “abused the privilege” afforded to Sikhs to carry a knife in public for religious reasons. “The offender was carrying a substantial bladed weapon in public, immediately available for use, which he repeatedly deployed against an unarmed and defenceless stranger,” Polnay said. He told the court the use of the dagger was “on at least one level, analogous to an abuse of trust”.
Polnay also cited “the offender’s sustained attempts to pervert the course of justice” and “his procurement of his mother’s assistance in concealing evidence”. Digwa’s mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was jailed for three years for taking the knife from the murder scene to the family home. Other aggravating factors included “degradation of the dying victim by filming him, and his conduct in misleading responders”.
Imran Khan KC, for Digwa, argued the sentence could be increased only in “exceptional, rather than borderline cases, and directed to gross error by the sentencing judge”. He maintained the sentencing judge had already “expressly aggravated [the sentence] for both the dangerous weapon and the abuse of religious privilege”. Khan said: “There must be vigilance for using the same underlying facts repeatedly.” He challenged the length of the sentence, noting that while Digwa’s lies affected Nowak’s dignity, his wounds were unsurvivable. “The false account therefore did not worsen the fatal injury or deprive Mr Nowak of the prospect of survival,” he said.
The hearing before Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, Mr Justice Nicklin and Mr Justice Wall is due to conclude on Thursday.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The case tests how courts treat false accusations of racism and abuse of religious exemptions as aggravating factors in sentencing.
- The decision could set a precedent for future cases involving legal privileges to carry weapons.
- The original sentence sparked public unrest in Southampton, and the appeal ruling may have broader community implications.
Background
Vickrum Digwa was convicted of murdering Henry Nowak in Southampton in December last year. He received a life sentence with a minimum of 21 years in June. The attorney general referred the sentence as potentially unduly lenient; Digwa also appealed his sentence as manifestly excessive. The case involves Digwa’s possession of a kirpan (a small ceremonial knife required for Sikhs) and a larger dagger associated with his membership of the Nihang order. Digwa falsely accused Nowak of racism at the scene, leading to Nowak’s arrest before his fatal injuries were discovered.
Key Perspectives
Attorney General Ellie Reeves (via Jonathan Polnay KC): Argues the 21-year minimum is unduly lenient, citing false racism allegation, abuse of religious knife exemption, attempts to pervert justice, and filming the dying victim.
Vickrum Digwa (via Imran Khan KC): Argues the sentence is manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge already accounted for the relevant aggravating factors; contends the false account did not worsen the fatal injury.
What to Watch
- The court of appeal’s ruling on whether to increase or reduce the minimum term, expected after Thursday’s hearing.
- Potential public reaction, given the earlier riots in Southampton.
- Whether the case prompts debate or legislative review of religious exemptions for carrying bladed weapons.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe court was told that Vickrum Digwa should have received a longer sentence because he falsely accused the victim of racism.UK news | The Guardian: “Vickrum Digwa, the killer of Henry Nowak, should have received a longer sentence because of his false accusations of racism against his victim and his abuse of a religious right to carry a knife, the court of appeal has been told.”
- SupportedThe attorney general referred Digwa’s 21-year minimum term as unduly lenient.UK news | The Guardian: “The attorney general, Ellie Reeves, has referred Digwa’s sentence to the court of appeal as “unduly lenient”.”
- SupportedThe defence argued that Digwa’s sentence was manifestly excessive.UK news | The Guardian: “On Thursday the court also heard Digwa’s appeal that his sentence was “manifestly excessive”.”
- SupportedDigwa was jailed for life with a minimum term of 21 years for murdering Nowak in Southampton in December last year.UK news | The Guardian: “Digwa, 23, was jailed in June for life with a minimum term of 21 years for murdering Nowak, 18, in an attack in Southampton in December last year.”
- SupportedDigwa falsely claimed that Nowak had racially abused him and knocked off his turban, leading police to arrest and handcuff Nowak before seeing his fatal injuries.UK news | The Guardian: “When police arrived at the murder scene, Digwa falsely claimed Nowak had racially abused him and knocked his turban off, causing officers to arrest and handcuff Nowak before they saw his fatal injuries.”
- SupportedPolnay said the sentence failed to account for “significant aggravating factors”, including a false allegation of racism against Nowak.UK news | The Guardian: “Jonathan Polnay KC, said the sentence failed to take into account a series of “significant aggravating factors”, including Digwa’s “false allegation of racism against the deceased”.”
- SupportedPolnay argued that Digwa had abused the religious privilege allowing Sikhs to carry a knife in public.UK news | The Guardian: “Polnay added that Digwa had “abused the privilege” afforded to Sikhs to carry a knife in a public place for religious reasons.”
- SupportedPolnay said Digwa carried a substantial bladed weapon and repeatedly used it against an unarmed, defenceless stranger.UK news | The Guardian: “The offender was carrying a substantial bladed weapon in public, immediately available for use, which he repeatedly deployed against an unarmed and defenceless stranger.”
- SupportedPolnay said Digwa’s use of the dagger was “on at least one level, analogous to an abuse of trust”.UK news | The Guardian: “He said that Digwa’s use of the dagger was, “on at least one level, analogous to an abuse of trust”.”
- SupportedDigwa’s mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was jailed for three years for taking the knife from the murder scene to the family home.UK news | The Guardian: “Digwa’s mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was jailed for three years for assisting an offender by taking the knife from where her son murdered Novak back to the family home.”
- SupportedKhan argued that Digwa’s sentence could be increased only in “exceptional, rather than borderline cases”, where there was gross error by the sentencing judge.UK news | The Guardian: “Imran Khan KC, for Digwa, said the sentence could be increased only in “exceptional, rather than borderline cases, and directed to gross error by the sentencing judge”.”
- SupportedKhan argued that the false account did not worsen Nowak’s fatal injury or deprive him of a prospect of survival.UK news | The Guardian: ““The false account therefore did not worsen the fatal injury or deprive Mr Nowak of the prospect of survival,” he said.”