"The issue was whether the sentence was lawful and proportionate.”
The sentence handed to the killer of 18-year-old student Henry Nowak is being reviewed by the Court of Appeal after concerns that his minimum prison term was too lenient.
Vickrum Digwa was jailed for life after being found guilty of murdering Nowak, who was stabbed to death in Southampton in December 2025.
Digwa received a minimum term of 21 years before he can be considered for parole. However, the Attorney General referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal, arguing that it was unduly lenient.
Jonathan Polnay KC, representing the Attorney General, previously argued that the minimum term should be increased because of several aggravating factors surrounding the killing.
These included Digwa’s use of a kirpan, a religious article traditionally carried by initiated Sikhs, as a weapon. The court heard arguments about the abuse of the religious exemption allowing its possession.
The prosecution also highlighted Digwa’s conduct after the stabbing, including filming Nowak as he lay dying, giving false information to emergency responders and attempting to conceal the weapon.
The case attracted international attention after Digwa falsely claimed he had been the victim of a racist attack. This resulted in Nowak being handcuffed while he was critically injured.
During the appeal hearing, Imran Khan KC, representing Digwa, argued that the original sentencing judge had carefully considered the circumstances before reaching his decision.
He told the court that the judge had considered the weapon, the number of wounds, the victim’s suffering, the filming and the false account given after the attack.
Khan argued that several aggravating factors substantially overlapped and should not have been given separate cumulative weight when calculating the minimum term.
He also maintained that the law governing unduly lenient sentences was intended for exceptional cases involving serious sentencing errors, rather than disagreements over the precise number of years imposed.
He said: “Nothing in our submissions diminishes the gravity of the killing or the loss suffered by Mr Nowak’s family. The issue was whether the sentence was lawful and proportionate.”
The Court of Appeal must now consider whether the original minimum term was appropriate or whether it should be increased.
The outcome could determine whether Digwa must serve a longer minimum period in prison before becoming eligible for parole.
The proceedings have renewed attention on the circumstances surrounding Nowak’s death and the sentencing arguments arising from the case.
