12. Why did Hampshire Police not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
The day after the murder, Hampshire Constabulary prepares a statement to imply that Henry was the aggressor, without mentioning the Digwa lies and weapons: ‘It was reported two men had been assaulted by an unknown man.’ (In fact, Digwa’s brother did not arrive on the scene until after Henry was stabbed.)
Henry’s relatives were rightly concerned about a false narrative. They showed rare presence of mind and assertiveness in protesting the statement.
Later, Hampshire police told the Nowaks about another statement they planned to publish, to include the family’s tribute to Henry, but again to imply Henry had been the aggressor. The force eventually changed ‘assault’ to ‘altercation’.
13. Why did Hampshire police spread disinformation?
During the trial of Digwa, Hampshire police planned to issue a statement to counter alleged disinformation online – on the grounds of calming public tensions. This sounds like the all too familiar excuse for suppressing information wherever the victims are white and the perps are not.
Hampshire police consulted the court and the Crown Prosecution Service, which eventually persuaded it not to publish on the grounds that it might prejudice the case.
Now we know that at least some of what Hampshire police labelled as racist disinformation is true.
14. How did Hampshire police persuade the criminal court of a misleading narrative?
A lot of commentators have trolled the critics (see the Guardian and comments on my own social media) with the claim that the criminal court did not find any police racism or two-tier justice. But this trolling has a couple problems.
First, the court was investigating a criminal case of murder, not presiding over an inquest into an avoidable death, so had no scope to investigate police actions, except as pertinent to the aggravating behaviour of the murderer.
Second, quoting a British court on two-tier policing is like asking Sir Keir Starmer about two-tier justice. You’re asking the accused.
Judge William Mousley is overly-sympathetic to the police. He seconded Hampshire police’s claims of a ‘complex’ scene, and judged that ‘the attending police officers honestly believed that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Henry had committed an offence and arrested him’, and that the officers could not have saved Henry.
But the scene was less complex than most violent altercations I’ve seen: one self-described victim; one obviously injured victim; bystanders who are not interfering.
Are we supposed to accept that this counts as a level of complexity that justifies ignoring physical and verbal evidence of a stabbing?
Four officers were present. I have responded to such situations with just one officer and without either of us getting wrong a minor fraction of what these four officers got wrong.
15. Why did Hampshire police not correct the Digwa family when it had the chance?
Now we know that the loathsome Digwa family was already known to Hampshire police.
Three years ago, a neighbour filmed Vickrum and another man firing airguns in their back garden. She said she reported the footage to Hampshire police – which says it has no record.
Mick Neville, formerly a Detective Chief Inspector at the Met, said Hampshire police should have visited Digwa’s home, as ‘you cannot tell if a firearm is legal without examining it’.
A visit to that home should have discovered the family’s arsenal of weapons (that discovery came with a visit to the home on the day after Henry’s murder).
That was in 2022. In 2023, the Sikh temple in Southampton reported Digwa for stealing ceremonial shasters (like the one that killed Henry), worth around £1,000. The theft allegedly occurred after the temple dismissed him as a gatka instructor. Sources from the temple described Digwa as angry, dishonest and aggressive. Police released him without charge.
16. Why is Hampshire Constabulary not investigating itself?
So far, Hampshire police admits no fault in any of the above.
Upon the conviction, Hampshire’s chief constable, Alexis Boon, apologised for the arrest and handcuffing but spoke carefully in a passive voice. Henry ‘could not be saved’. The situation was ‘complex’. Hampshire police is the victim of the Digwas’ lies. Two-tier policing doesn’t exist.
Then the drip-drip of embarrassing leaks and revelations began.
First came the bodycam footage, which reveals to me the officers’ blindingly obvious malpractice. Some officers with good experience agree.
Former Metropolitan Police senior detective Shabnam Chaudri told the BBC: ‘In my personal opinion, they breached every aspect of the basic principles of policing.’ (Before lunatic leftists troll this opinion as white supremacism, consider that the detective is as ‘brown’ as the Digwas describe themselves.)
Sue Sim, former Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, said: ‘Those officers appear to have attended a scene with a belief that they must put anything that is allegedly racially motivated above anything else. And that is absolutely inaccurate, it’s wrong.’
Hampshire police has not named or investigated the four officers who mishandled Henry. Three are still employed. One resigned – which, alas, likely protects that person from any accountability.
Don’t expect criminal or professional consequences. Remember: West Midlands Police banned Israeli football fans to please local Islamists, fabricated intelligence of threats from Israelis, and lied to Parliament, yet its chief still retired early without any accountability and with a hefty payoff.
17. Why did Hampshire police refer itself for investigation into only handcuffs and first aid?
Hampshire police did not refer itself for independent investigation until the day of the conviction, six months after the murder.
It chose the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which is one of many infuriating quangos with too much self-interest and too little accountability to hold its own to account. The IOPC has already declared that two-tier policing doesn’t exist.
The IOPC decides for itself what it will investigate – even whether to investigate. The IOPC says its scope is ‘the use of handcuffs by officers and the first aid provided’.
That scope is pathetic. I bet the IOPC will see no evidence that the cuffs were used inappropriately, and will absolve the officers of any awareness of Henry’s wounds, but will ‘learn lessons’ for how officers should be trained for such situations in the future.
18. Why isn’t national government involved?
The IOPC says it will treat the officers as ‘witnesses’. It will not investigate their conduct. Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, is urging ministers to add ‘conduct’ but His Majesty’s Opposition doesn’t have the votes, and Labour backbenchers don’t have the honour to lend their votes.
Sir Keir’s administration could order a public inquiry but is keen to dodge its culpability in two-tier justice (even while it champions social justice, which is the same thing).
Don’t expect any investigation by this administration. Expect ministers to celebrate the ‘independence’ of quangos, and skip over the unaccountability of quangos.
Donna Jones, Hampshire’s elected Police and Crime Commissioner, requested an urgent investigation into the force’s ‘culture and performance’ by the HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, which has ‘agreed in principle’. But the Government has already committed to abolishing the elected commissioners before the next general election. So the Inspectorate could procrastinate until then.
We would need a new government to order a public inquiry, which wouldn’t start until 2029 on the electoral schedule.
19. Why can’t an inquest convene urgently?
Bear in mind that Hampshire’s police and courts have already arrested, charged, and convicted protesters within the same week. But somehow the authorities in Hampshire cannot organise an inquest until September 2027. Although it ‘hopes’ for urgency, most inquests are delayed.
20. Why is Hampshire police using excessive force against righteous protests?
Given the bodycam footage and other recently released evidence, I conclude that Hampshire police used unjustified, biased and ideologically-motivated excessive force against an innocent, mortally wounded young man. The more I hear of Henry Nowak, the more I get the sense of rare virtue. His death sickens me. Researching for this article sickened me. For days, I have steeled myself for the effort.
I think the people of Hampshire are right to protest against what they have seen.
Hampshire police reacted with more excessive force. Its officers donned riot gear, and used 5ft shields as weapons. Worst, they turned on a man sitting on a wall, dragged him into the street, and bludgeoned, kicked and punched his head. At least 10 officers were involved. He has been charged. No officer has been named or investigated. No bodycam footage has been released. Where is the investigation into his arrest and abuse?
