Vickrum Digwa’s ‘unduly lenient’ term for Southampton teenager’s murder increased after attorney general’s appeal
Henry Nowak’s killer has seen his sentence extended by the court of appeal after it ruled that his original sentence was “unduly lenient”.
Vickrum Digwa’s original sentence of life with a minimum term of 21 years was lengthened to a minimum of 24 years and 190 days after a successful appeal by the attorney general, Ellie Reeves.
Digwa, 23, stabbed Nowak several times in an attack in Southampton in December last year.
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.
Digwa filmed his victim as he lay dying and lied to emergency services that Nowak, 18, had racially abused him.
The incident led to riots in Southampton.
Lady Chief Justice Carr said the original sentencing judge, William Mousley KC, had materially understated two distinct dimensions of Digwa’s offending.
She said: “First, the circumstances in which a large and immediately available dagger was used repeatedly with an intention to kill an unarmed man, and secondly, the deliberate cruelty, additional suffering, and obstruction [of justice] which followed the stabbing.”
She added: “A minimum term of 21 years did not adequately reflect the overall seriousness of the murder. It was not only lenient, but unduly so.
“Therefore, we quash the minimum term of 21 years. We replace it with a minimum term of 25 years. From that term must be deducted the 175 days spent in custody on remand, producing an operative minimum term of 24 years and 190 days.”
In written submissions on behalf of Reeves, 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” and his “abuse” of the privilege afforded to Sikhs to carry a knife in a public place for religious reasons.
At Digwa’s sentencing hearing, Mousley said that on the night of the murder, Digwa had a small knife hidden from view called a kirpan, which is a strict requirement for Sikhs to carry at all times.
Digwa also had a “large dagger in a sheath” due to his membership of the Nihang, an order of Sikhs which has a tradition of holding a second knife.
Polnay told the court that the attempt to increase the sentence was “not about the lawful possession of a kirpan” and the laws allowing Sikhs to carry blades. “It is about what followed.” He said Digwa’s use of the dagger was “on at least one level, analogous to an abuse of trust”.
He continued: “When a person who has the benefit of that accommodation uses the article protected by law for repeated lethal violence, that is an aggravating factor of particular weight.”
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 assisting an offender by taking the knife from where her son murdered Novak back to the family home.
Polnay said other aggravating factors included Digwa’s “degradation of the dying victim by filming him, and his conduct in misleading responders”.
His submission said: “The minimum term imposed failed adequately to reflect the combined weight of those features.”
In her ruling made alongside Mr Justice Nicklin and Mr Justice Wall, Carr said: “A person who knowingly carries a large knife or other bladed article in public, even if lawfully, and then uses it to kill an unarmed man after only a brief altercation, is highly culpable. His culpability is much closer to that of a person who takes a weapon into the street for offensive use than to that of someone who kills without a weapon, or someone who picks up a weapon of opportunity.”
On the false allegations of racism, Carr said: “It is unnecessary for us to determine whether the allegation of racial abuse was false, for even if that finding is left out of account, it does not affect our assessment of the appropriate minimum term.”
Digwa watched proceedings from HMP Frankland in County Durham, wearing a dark suit, shirt and tie.
Members of Nowak’s family attended the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, with one relative wiping their eyes as the ruling was handed down.
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”. He asked: “Where is the gross error?”
Challenging the length of the sentence, Khan said that while Digwa’s lies to first responders “unquestionably affected the dignity with which Mr Nowak was treated”, 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.
In response to Digwa’s appeal, Carr said: “Having reached the conclusion that the proper minimum term would be at least 25 years, we refuse Digwa leave to appeal against his sentence. It is unarguable that it is manifestly excessive.”
Reeves said: “The brutality and cruelty of this case horrified me, and I know that feeling is shared by the British public. I welcome the court of appeal’s decision to increase the minimum term of Digwa’s life sentence.”
