The court of appeal increases the term
The court of appeal increased the minimum sentence for Vickrum Digwa after ruling that the original term for the murder of Henry Nowak was unduly lenient. Attorney General Ellie Reeves successfully appealed the life sentence that previously carried a minimum term of 21 years. Lady Chief Justice Carr replaced that term with a 25-year minimum, which produces an operative minimum of 24 years and 190 days after the court deducts the 175 days Digva spent in custody on remand. I find the original sentencing by William Mousley KC failed to account for the distinct dimensions of the crime, specifically the use of a large dagger against an unarmed man and the cruelty that followed the stabbing. Carr stated that the 21-year minimum was unduly lenient and did not adequately reflect the overall seriousness of the murder. Polnay KC, representing Reeves, argued the sentence failed to account for significant aggravating factors, including the false allegation of racism and the abuse of the privilege afforded to Sikhs to carry a knife in public. He also argued the minimum term failed to reflect the combined weight of Digva’s degradation of the dying victim by filming him and his conduct in misleading responders. While Digva’s defense lawyer, Imran Khan KC, asked, "Where is the gross error?", Carr refused leave for Digva to appeal the new sentence. Khan argued that Digva’s lies to responders did not worsen the fatal injury because the wounds were unsurvivable. However, the court found that the combined weight of the aggravating factors required a higher term.
Aggravating factors and the crime
Digva, 23, stabbed Nowak, 18, several times during an attack in Southampton in December last year, using a kirpan for religious reasons alongside a large dagger in a sheath because of his membership in the Nihang order. Jonathan Polnay KC argued that Digva’s use of the dagger was analogous to an abuse of trust because he used an article protected by law to commit repeated lethal violence. 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. Digva filmed the victim as he lay dying and misled emergency services by falsely claiming Nowak had racially abused him and knocked his turban off. These false allegations led officers to arrest and handcuff Nowak before they saw his fatal injuries, an incident that led to riots in Southampton. Digva’s mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, went to jail for three years after she assisted her son by taking the knife from the murder scene back to the family home. Carr observed that a person who carries a large knife in public and uses it to kill an unarmed man has culpability close to someone who takes a weapon into the street for offensive use. Regarding the false allegations, Carr noted that determining if the claim of racial abuse was false was unnecessary, as it did not affect the assessment of the minimum term. I find the defense’s attempt to minimize the impact of the false racial allegations unconvincing given the subsequent investigation. Digva watched the proceedings from HMP Frankland in County Durham in a dark suit, shirt, and tie. Members of Nowak’s family attended the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, where one relative wiped their eyes as the court delivered the ruling.
