Reviewed and updated 20 August 2026 to reflect the current Independent Office for Police Conduct investigation.
By Aneeta Prem MBE
Henry Nowak was 18 years old when he was murdered in Southampton. Vickrum Digwa was convicted of the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years.
That criminal responsibility has been determined by a court.
A different question remains under independent investigation: how police responded to Henry after arriving at the scene.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct said on 1 July 2026 that two Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary officers were under investigation for potential gross misconduct. The IOPC is examining possible failures to recognise that Henry needed urgent medical attention, to act immediately after he said he had been stabbed and could not breathe, and the decision to arrest and handcuff him rather than provide immediate first aid.
Those are serious matters. They are also allegations within an ongoing misconduct investigation, not findings of guilt.
Both truths must be held at the same time.
The murderer and the police response are separate questions
Digwa was responsible for Henry’s murder. Scrutiny of the police response does not transfer that responsibility away from him.
Equally, the fact that another person committed the murder does not remove the need to examine what officers knew, what they saw and how they responded to a gravely injured young man.
Public accountability becomes weaker when different questions are collapsed into one.
The criminal court answered who murdered Henry. The IOPC investigation is considering the conduct of officers at the scene.
Why first impressions matter
Police officers often arrive in confused situations where several people are speaking, information is incomplete and decisions must be made quickly.
That is exactly why the first account cannot become the final conclusion.
Hampshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner said Henry had been falsely accused of a racially aggravated assault while he lay dying and that his attacker had tried to frame himself as the victim. The Commissioner also raised concerns about impartiality, fairness and judgement in the police response.
The IOPC has said it is examining whether race or religion influenced officers’ decisions or whether assumptions linked to community tensions played a part.
That does not mean prejudice has been proved. It means the possibility is properly within the scope of an independent investigation.
An allegation is not evidence
Allegations of racism should be taken seriously. So should reports of violence, injury and medical distress.
Taking an allegation seriously does not require treating it as established fact.
Good policing has to remain capable of reassessment as new evidence appears. A person initially viewed as a suspect may be a victim. Someone who appears calm may be dangerous. A person on the ground may need urgent medical care.
The discipline is not to ignore the first story. It is to keep testing it.
The duty to preserve life
The most troubling feature of the public account is Henry’s medical condition.
The IOPC says its investigation concerns the response after Henry said he had been stabbed and could not breathe, including the first aid provided and the decision to arrest and handcuff him.
Those questions should be answered through evidence, body-worn video, control-room material, witness evidence, training standards and the independent investigation.
It would be wrong to decide misconduct from a short clip on social media. It would be equally wrong to dismiss public concern before the investigation is complete.
Accountability requires patience and scrutiny together.
The kirpan and the wider debate
The case has also prompted debate about the law on bladed articles carried for religious reasons.
Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides statutory defences in particular circumstances, including where a person has a bladed article for religious reasons.
That legal defence to possession is not a defence to violence or murder.
Any wider debate about religious freedom and weapons law should therefore remain separate from the individual criminal responsibility already established in Henry’s case.
It is possible to discuss whether legislation should change without treating an entire faith community as responsible for one person’s crime.
Why independent scrutiny matters
The IOPC investigation has moved beyond the position when this article was first published in June. Two officers have now been notified that they are under investigation for potential gross misconduct.
That still does not tell us the outcome.
The purpose of an independent process is to establish whether standards were breached, on the evidence, and what learning or accountability should follow.
Henry’s family deserve answers grounded in fact rather than speculation. Police officers also deserve a process that distinguishes questions from proven misconduct.
What institutions should learn
The strongest organisations are not those that resist difficult questions. They are those that can test decisions after a tragedy and change practice where the evidence requires it.
The questions raised by Henry’s case are therefore wider than one incident:
- How are officers trained to reassess initial accounts?
- How is urgent medical distress prioritised at a chaotic scene?
- How do officers avoid tunnel vision when allegations involve race, religion or community tensions?
- When is the use of handcuffs proportionate where somebody may be seriously injured?
- How quickly can control-room and scene information be joined together?
- What learning follows when an independent investigation identifies a failure?
None of these questions assumes the outcome of the current investigation.
Final word
Henry Nowak was murdered. His family’s loss should not be turned into fuel for hatred between communities.
But calm does not mean silence.
The public should be able to ask whether a seriously injured person was seen clearly enough, listened to quickly enough and given the urgent help he needed.
The IOPC now has the task of answering those questions through evidence.
The first story should never become more powerful than the facts that follow it.
Sources and further reading
- IOPC: investigation into conduct of two officers, 1 July 2026
- Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner: response to IOPC update
- Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 139