Fact check: Convicted murderers get lifetime sentences with minimum prison terms

Vickrum Digwa was sentenced on Monday for the murder of Henry Nowak.

He was given a life sentence and will serve a minimum of 21 years. This article examines the rationale behind that sentence.

Evaluation

The sentencing guidelines that the judge in this case relied on imposes a minimum baseline of 25 years in prison only if the person convicted brought a knife to the scene of the crime intending to either commit an offence or have the knife available to use as a weapon.

The judge considered that Digwa’s actions did not meet these criteria because it “is possible that (Digwa) had a good legal reason for having the dagger” and it was said he did not bring the knife with intent to murder. The judge also noted that Digwa had “abused the privilege extended to Sikhs to have a knife in a public place for religious reason”.

The facts

What does the law say?

A judge sentencing someone for murder must impose a life sentence. They then set a minimum amount of time that person will spend in prison before they can be considered for release.

The judge follows guidance set out by Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act to help decide the minimum term.

In England and Wales, murder carries a mandatory life sentence with a starting point of 15 years.

The guidance sets out when to give a whole-life order, which means the offender will spend the rest of their life in prison.

There are a few ways to meet this threshold, including murder of a police or probation officer, that the offender is a previously convicted murderer, or if two or more people were murdered in a premeditated way.

The minimum 30-year term is expected to be handed out when a murder is committed with a firearm or explosive, when it is done for gain (for instance during a burglary), when two or more people are killed, or when the murder is racially aggravated. There are other reasons that could result in a minimum 30-year term.

For a 25-year minimum starting point, the law reads: “The offence falls within this sub-paragraph 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”, adding: “and used that knife or other weapon in committing the murder.”

If the murder does not fall into the categories above, then the starting point for the minimum term is 15 years. This is what the judge opted for in Digwa’s case.

What was said in this case?

In his sentencing remarks, Judge William Mousley KC laid out his logic for why he used the 15-year minimum starting point.

He said Digwa had not brought the knife to the scene intending to use it to commit murder, as the sentencing guidelines require. He added that Digwa might have had “good legal reason for having the dagger” – a likely reference to Digwa’s Sikh religion, which allowed him to legally carry a knife.

The murder was also not for gain, the judge added.

Judge Mousley said: “I have to apply Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to identify the starting point for that minimum period. In this case, that gives a minimum term is 15 years.

“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.

“Neither was it a murder for gain; whilst you did take his phone, or even rob him of it, that was neither the purpose of the murder nor clearly a part of it, but I am sure it was a further trigger for what happened to Henry.”

Judge Mousley added eight years to the sentence for aggravating factors and removed two years for mitigating factors.

The judge told Digwa: “You abused the privilege extended to Sikhs to have a knife in a public place for religious reasons, dishonoured your religion and have now put others at risk of repercussions. Those factors increase the minimum term to 23 years.”

The mitigating factors were “your age, your previous good record with no previous convictions, and a lack of premeditation”, the judge told Digwa.

These materials were developed for the Prebunking at Scale project, with support from the European Fact-Checking Standards Network.

Links

Sentencing Council – Sentencing for murder (archived)

Sentencing Act 2020 – Schedule 21 (archived)

The King v Vickrum Singh Digwa – sentencing remarks (archived)

About PA’s fact checks

If you have any suggestions for future fact checks, objections or comments, please send them to factcheck@pamediagroup.com, including any relevant links. For more information on how to submit a correction or dispute a rating, please refer to our Corrections and complaints policy