The UK Henry Nowak Case Resurfaces

Last June, I posted about the conviction of a UK Sikh, Vickrum Digwa, for stabbing a university student, Henry Nowak, who died at the scene from his injuries. The case becanme highly controversial due to what appeared to be police misconduct in arresting Nowak instead of Digwa and delaying medical care for Nowak. The government was extremely slow to respond to the controversy, but by July, it was announced that there would be an investigation.

Four months later, any investigation has yet to begin, but they sure are making big plans:

An independent review into the circumstances surrounding the tragic murder of Henry Nowak has been announced by the Home Secretary.

At the heart of the review is a commitment that any lessons that arise from the case are learned so that everything can be done to prevent any other family suffering in the way that the Nowak family has.

The review will be in 2 parts. Phase 1 will investigate whether opportunities were missed to prevent Henry’s murder, examining what was known about the perpetrator, Vickrum Digwa, in the 5 years before the attack.

This will cover the police, health services, local authorities and educational institutions, and faith organisations, including any concerns relating to weapon possession and violent, threatening and erratic behaviour.

Phase 1 will also consider how the Nowak family were treated by agencies across the criminal justice system following Henry’s death – including the police, CPS, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, and the HM Prison and Probation Service.

Phase 2 will follow once the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has concluded its investigation into the actions of police officers who attended the scene, and will consider the actions of the IOPC and, if necessary, the police.

Based on reporting from July, the IOPC investigation has been under way since the stabbing took place on December 3, 2025, nearly a year, and it apparently will still be ongoing for some time, based on the link, but once it's done, the blue-ribbon panel's gonna get straight to the bottom of it! (For comparison, the UK investigation into the Titanic disaster of April 15, 1912, lasted from May 2 to July 3, 1912. A sense of urgency can make a difference, it would seem.)

It does appear that there's quite a bit to investigate, once they get around to it:

The family of the murdered teenager Henry Nowak, who was arrested as he pleaded for medical help after being stabbed, have said they were failed by the authorities and fear they were manipulated in their darkest hour.

His parents described how police wrongly told them Nowak, 18, had been the aggressor, and that officers had immediately administered first aid. They said the police watchdog had initially said there was no evidence of misconduct by officers.

“The story was evolving every time we had an interaction,” Henry’s father, Mark Nowak, told ITV News. “What started off as: ‘When the police arrived, we administered first aid,’ moved through a stage where: ‘When the police arrived, they detained everyone’ … to: ‘We actually only detained Henry,’ to then: ‘We handcuffed Henry,’ and then: ‘We placed Henry under arrest.’

“That evolution of what actually happened that night really shocked us, and we felt we were being hoodwinked. We felt we were being not told the truth.”

. . . In police bodyworn camera footage that prompted a public outcry, Nowak was heard repeatedly saying: “I’ve been stabbed,” to which an officer replied: “Don’t think you have, mate.”

The report at the link reinforces the impression that the IOPC is slow-walking any investigation:

Nowak’s family revealed that the IOPC had said in April: “No [Hampshire police] officers would be subject to conduct or criminal investigation. This was because there were no concerns identified in relation to officer actions.” Less than two months later, Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary was forced to apologise for its actions.

The police watchdog’s director of engagement, Derrick Campbell, told ITV News: “The IOPC is committed to establishing the full circumstances of this case, including whether any of the officers involved should face disciplinary proceedings, and providing Henry’s family with answers to the questions they rightly have about how the police treated Henry in the way they did on that terrible night, and why.”

According to The Times,

The IOPC investigation into potential police failures is expected to conclude early next year. In July, two officers were served gross misconduct notices following a full review.

I asked Chrome AI mode, "What does it mean when a UK police officer is served a gross misconduct notice?" It answered,

When a UK police officer is served a gross misconduct notice (often referred to as a Regulation 17 notice), it means they are officially under investigation for a severe breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is serious enough to justify dismissal.

Being served a notice does not mean the officer is guilty. Instead, it marks the formal start of a disciplinary investigation by the force's Professional Standards Department or the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

So maybe by early next year, the IOPC will finish its investigation, and maybe then it will hold a hearing on whether the officers should be held accountable, or maybe not. Reports from last summer suggeat the officers haven't been suspended, but they're on soft duty to protect them from threats. I asked Chrome AI mode to compare how the Nowak case would be handled in the US vis-a-vis the UK. It answered in part,

In the United States, the officers would almost certainly have been placed on immediate administrative leave or suspension following the public release of the bodycam footage, if not immediately after the incident itself. While police disciplinary actions vary widely across the thousands of independent law enforcement agencies in the US, an incident involving a failure to render aid, mocking a dying victim, and handcuffing them based on an unverified accusation would typically trigger specific procedural steps under American policing standards.

In a US context, dismissing a victim's statements of "I've been stabbed" and "I can't breathe" while delaying medical care for eight minutes would be treated as a egregious violation of department policy and a failure to protect a person in custody.

In the US, due to intense local political pressure and direct accountability of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs to mayors or local electorates, departments typically act much faster publicly. Facing bodycam footage of this nature, a US Police Chief would typically move to suspend or fire the officers quickly to mitigate civil liability, public protests, and political fallout.

In the US, officers acting with such extreme negligence can face state-level criminal charges, such as reckless endangerment, official misconduct, or involuntary manslaughter. If criminal charges are brought by a local District Attorney or state Attorney General, the administrative suspension is immediately upgraded to an unpaid suspension pending the outcome of the trial.

Something is deeply wrong in the UK. Somehow, our founding fathers figured this one out in the 1700s.