An independent review is to examine the circumstances surrounding the murder of Henry Nowak, including whether opportunities to prevent his death were missed and how his family were treated after it.
The review has been announced by the Home Secretary and will be led by Alex Chalk KC, the former Lord Chancellor. Its first phase is expected to report by March 2027.
Henry Nowak was 18 when he was fatally stabbed in Southampton on 3 December 2025. Vickrum Digwa was convicted of his murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years. The new review does not reopen that criminal conviction. Its purpose is to examine wider questions raised by the case and the response that followed.
What the first phase will examine
Phase one will look at what was known about Digwa in the five years before the attack and whether there were missed opportunities to intervene. The scope covers information held by police, health services, local authorities, educational institutions and faith organisations.
It is intended to consider concerns that may have related to weapon possession and to violent, threatening or erratic behaviour. This is an inquiry into whether warning signs or relevant information should have led to action. It is not a finding that any organisation failed, nor does the announcement determine what the review will ultimately conclude.
The first phase will also examine the Nowak family’s experience after Henry’s death. That part of the work reaches across the criminal justice system, including the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, courts, and prison and probation services. It will consider whether the family were treated appropriately by the public bodies involved at a time of profound loss.
For the family, the review creates a formal route for questions about prevention, communication and treatment to be examined together rather than only through separate processes. Its remit also recognises that the experience of bereaved relatives can involve more than the criminal trial itself, extending to contact with agencies before and after a case reaches court.
A second phase will wait for the police-conduct investigation
The review is structured in two parts. The second phase will not begin until the Independent Office for Police Conduct has completed its investigation into the actions of officers who attended the scene. It will then consider the conduct of that body and, if necessary, the police.
That sequence is important. The police-conduct investigation has not yet reached its conclusion, and the review should not be taken as a determination of responsibility for officers or any institution. The inquest process also remains separate. Questions that are still being investigated must be resolved through the appropriate legal and oversight procedures, rather than assumed from the announcement of a review.
Chalk’s appointment gives the first phase an independent lead with responsibility for examining the evidence across several sectors. The March 2027 reporting date sets a timetable for the initial work, but it does not guarantee in advance what recommendations, if any, will follow. Any lessons identified will need to be set out after the evidence has been assessed.
Why the scope matters
The review’s breadth means it will look beyond the final events of one night. By considering the five years before the murder, it can examine how concerns were recognised, shared or acted on across organisations where relevant information may have existed. By examining the family’s subsequent experience, it can also consider whether systems intended to support bereaved relatives worked as they should.
Those are significant questions, but they remain questions. The announcement is the start of an independent process, not its conclusion. It does not establish that warning signs were missed, that information was available to a particular agency, or that any public body acted improperly.
The first report is due by March 2027. Until then, the independent review, the continuing police-conduct investigation and the inquest will each have distinct roles in establishing what happened and whether any changes are needed.
