Appeal court to review murder sentence for Nowak

The British government has referred the case of Vickrum Digwa to the Court of Appeal, asking judges to increase his 21-year minimum sentence for the murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak. Solicitor General Ellie Reeves announced Monday that she was referring the case under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

Nowak died in December last year after Digwa stabbed him in Southampton. Digwa falsely told police he had been the victim of a racist attack, which led officers to handcuff Nowak and treat him as a suspect — despite the victim’s claims that he had been stabbed and his pleas that he could not breathe.

Digwa watched Nowak struggling and did not alert police that the teenager was seriously injured. Instead, he maintained his lie after having repeatedly stabbed the student with a 21cm blade.

The mandatory sentence for murder is life.

The Court of Appeal judges will be asked to decide the minimum time Digwa, 23, must serve before he can be considered for parole and released on life licence.

She did not state the specific grounds for the appeal. But the chambers of Digwa’s defence barrister laid out how he argued for a lower sentence than the prosecution wanted, after a jury had reached a guilty verdict at Southampton Crown Court.

Under a listing for Jeremy Wainwright KC, the website states:

“At the sentencing hearing on 1 June, the prosecution argued for a 25-year starting point for the minimum tariff on the basis that the defendant had the knife with him to use as a weapon.” “This could have resulted in a minimum of over 30 years once other aggravating features had been taken into consideration.”

“Jeremy Wainwright KC was successful in persuading the judge that the starting point should be 15 years as Vickrum had a genuine belief that the additional Kirpan he carried was part of his religious beliefs.”

During sentencing, Wainwright told the court:

“He carried that knife in the same way that he does every day in his life: as part of his religion.”

The trial judge, William Mousley KC, said the murder did not involve taking a knife to the scene with the purpose to use it as a weapon. “It is possible that you had a good legal reason for having the dagger when you met Henry although, considering the jury’s verdict, that reason must have come to an end after you removed it from its sheath.”