The minimum prison term handed to the man convicted of murdering Southampton student Henry Nowak is set to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal following concerns that the sentence may not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime.
Vickrum Digwa, 23, was sentenced to life imprisonment earlier this month after being found guilty of murdering 18-year-old Henry Nowak. As part of that sentence, he was ordered to serve a minimum term of 21 years before becoming eligible to apply for parole.
The case attracted widespread public attention due to the circumstances surrounding the fatal incident and the events that followed. It has since become the subject of significant public debate, with questions raised about both the handling of the incident and the sentence imposed by the court.
The Solicitor General has now formally referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. The referral allows senior judges to examine whether the minimum term imposed falls within the appropriate sentencing range for the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.
While a referral does not automatically result in a harsher sentence, the Court of Appeal has the power to increase the minimum term if it concludes that the original punishment was insufficient.
Henry, a first-year university student from Essex, was killed in the early hours of 3 December 2025 while walking home following a night out. During the trial, jurors heard that he suffered multiple stab wounds during an encounter in Southampton city centre.
Prosecutors argued that the attack was unprovoked and presented evidence that challenged the defendant’s version of events. The defence claimed the defendant had acted in self-defence after allegedly being subjected to racist abuse. However, the jury ultimately rejected that account and returned a guilty verdict for murder.
The trial heard that, following the stabbing, the defendant attempted to portray himself as the victim. Evidence presented in court showed that emergency responders and police officers initially received information that led them to believe a different version of events had taken place.
Body-worn video footage, which later emerged during the investigation, showed Henry informing officers that he had been stabbed and was struggling to breathe. The footage became a focal point of public concern after it revealed the sequence of events leading up to his collapse. Despite efforts to save him, Henry died at the scene.
The circumstances of the police response triggered widespread criticism and led to an independent investigation into the actions taken by officers that night. The force involved later apologised to Henry’s family while maintaining that officers had initially been presented with misleading information.
During the murder trial, the court also heard evidence relating to the disposal of the weapon used in the attack. A family member of the defendant was subsequently convicted of assisting an offender after removing the knife from the scene.
When passing sentence, the judge rejected suggestions that the killing had been motivated by racial provocation and concluded that the defendant had deliberately attempted to mislead investigators in the aftermath of the attack. The court further heard evidence regarding the nature and size of the weapon used during the incident.
Following the announcement of the life sentence, several requests were submitted asking for the punishment to be reviewed. The referral means the Court of Appeal will now consider whether the 21-year minimum term properly reflects the gravity of the offence and the wider circumstances of the case.
The forthcoming review is expected to attract considerable public interest and could have significant implications for the final sentence. If judges determine that the minimum term was unduly lenient, they have the authority to increase the period that must be served before parole can be considered.
For Henry’s family, the review represents another important stage in a case that has already generated intense national discussion surrounding violent crime, accountability, and public confidence in the criminal justice system.
A hearing date for the Court of Appeal review is expected to be announced in due course.
