Unduly lenient?

Should killer have received a minimum term of at least 25 years?

The attorney general is considering whether to refer the sentencing of Vickrum Singh Digwa, 23, to the Court of Appeal. On Monday, Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 21 years for the murder of Henry Nowak, who was 18.

The sentence for murder is fixed by law. So the only question for consideration by Lord Hermer KC — and perhaps by the Court of Appeal — is whether Digwa’s minimum term was unduly lenient. If so, appeal judges can replace it with whatever lawful sentence they think appropriate.

Henry Nowak

Passing sentence, Judge Mousley KC, honorary recorder of Southampton, said the appropriate starting point under schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was 15 years imprisonment.

Aggravating factors increased the minimum term to 23 years. Mitigating factors brought it down to 21 years, less the 175 days Digwa had spent in prison awaiting trial. That calculation strikes me as unexceptionable.

As the judge was well aware, though, paragraph 4 of schedule 21 sets a starting point of 25 years in some cases. An offence falls within sub-paragraph 4(2)

if the offender took a knife or other weapon to the scene intending to—

(a) commit any offence, or

(b) have it available to use as a weapon,

and used that knife or other weapon in committing the murder.

Digwa certainly took a knife to the scene. He used that knife in committing the murder. There is no evidence, as far as I know, that he intended to commit an offence when he took the knife to the scene. But did he intend to have the knife “available to use as a weapon”?

No, the judge told him:

the murder did not involve taking a knife to the scene with the purpose to use it to commit an offence or to have it available to do so. 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.

That conclusion seems to be based on the evidence that the “large Sikh dagger in a sheath attached to a belt over the outside of [his] clothing” was being carried by Digwa as a matter of religious obligation — although, as the judge pointed out, this was more a matter of tradition than a strict requirement, even for the order of Sikhs to which he belonged.

But it seems to me that this is not inconsistent with an intention to have a knife available to use as a weapon if the offender chose to use it for that purpose. Why would Digwa have carried a lethal weapon unless he intended it to be available for his use?

And if that view is shared by the attorney general and ultimately by the Court of Appeal, Digwa will spend at least 25 years behind bars — plus a few years more — before he is considered for release.