The man convicted of murdering 18-year-old university student Henry Nowak is now attempting to overturn both his conviction and his prison sentence, reopening one of Britain’s most controversial criminal cases.

Vickrum Digwa, 23, who was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years for fatally stabbing Nowak in Southampton, has formally lodged an appeal against both the guilty verdict and his sentence, according to the Court of Appeal. No hearing date has yet been scheduled.

The case shocked the UK after prosecutors said Digwa falsely claimed he had been racially abused following the attack. Public outrage intensified when police bodycam footage later showed Henry Nowak lying mortally wounded while repeatedly telling officers he had been stabbed and struggling to breathe. Officers initially handcuffed the teenager before realizing the severity of his injuries, a response that has since become the subject of an independent misconduct investigation.

Digwa’s latest legal move comes as prosecutors are also seeking a review of his sentence, arguing that the minimum 21-year term may have been too lenient. As a result, the Court of Appeal could ultimately consider both Digwa’s attempt to challenge his conviction and the government’s request for a potentially longer sentence.

The case has continued to generate intense public debate across Britain, with renewed scrutiny of policing, sentencing, and the events surrounding the fatal stabbing. While Digwa is entitled to appeal under UK law, his conviction and life sentence remain in force unless overturned by the Court of Appeal.

The appeal has reopened one of the UK’s most controversial murder cases—but it could also lead to an even harsher outcome. Read the full story to see why both sides are now heading back to court.

Vickrum Digwa’s attempt to overturn his conviction for the fatal stabbing of Henry Nowak has thrust Britain’s legal system back into the spotlight, rekindling a debate that once dominated headlines and social media. At 23 years old, the Southampton-based man was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years. Now, through legal channels, he has formally appealed both the guilty verdict and the length of his sentence, filing the paperwork with the Court of Appeal.

No hearing date has been set, leaving the case in a state of legal limbo that has kept the nation divided.

The murder occurred in Southampton on a night that was meant to be ordinary for a university student. Henry Nowak, an 18-year-old fresh from A-levels and looking forward to starting his first year at university, was walking home after a night out when he crossed paths with Digwa. What followed was not a random act but a calculated attack that left the teenager bleeding out on the street. Prosecutors presented evidence that Digwa had stabbed Nowak multiple times, intending to cause fatal harm. The motive, as described by the prosecution, was personal—a dispute that escalated into violence.

Yet Digwa did not accept the full weight of that narrative. Instead, he maintained his innocence and argued that the conviction should be overturned on grounds of insufficient evidence and procedural errors during the trial.

The appeal process itself is standard in UK law. Any convicted individual has the right to challenge both the finding of guilt and the severity of the sentence. Digwa’s legal team has reportedly cited new witness statements, forensic re-analysis, and alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. They point to the way the murder was investigated and how the evidence was presented. Meanwhile, the Crown Prosecution Service has not sat idle. In a move that adds another layer of complexity, prosecutors are simultaneously seeking a review of Digwa’s sentence.

They argue that the 21-year minimum term was unduly lenient given the brutality of the attack and the impact it had on Nowak’s family and the wider community. If the Court of Appeal agrees, it could impose a significantly longer minimum term, potentially pushing Digwa into his forties or beyond before he becomes eligible for parole.

What makes this case so incendiary is the racial dimension that was injected into the narrative. Early in the investigation, Digwa claimed he had been racially abused by Nowak or his associates. The prosecution dismissed this as a fabrication designed to deflect attention from his own actions. The claim became a focal point of outrage because it suggested a motive tied to racism rather than a purely personal dispute. Public anger boiled over as news spread that the teenager had been attacked in what many perceived as an unprovoked assault.

Social media platforms filled with graphic discussions, petitions demanding justice, and calls for the police to be held accountable for their handling of the scene.

Bodycam footage released as part of the independent misconduct investigation changed the public’s perception of the immediate aftermath. The recording captured Nowak lying on the ground, gasping for air, clutching his chest and repeatedly pleading with officers that he had been stabbed. “I’m stabbed,” he could be heard saying in a weakened voice. “Help me, I can’t breathe.” The scene was harrowing. Officers, however, initially appeared to hesitate. Instead of rushing to administer aid or calling for an ambulance, they first secured the scene and even placed handcuffs on the injured teenager.

Only after further assessment did they realise the gravity of his wounds. The delay sparked widespread criticism. Critics argued that the officers had failed to recognise the severity of the situation, possibly due to panic or miscommunication. The footage has since been scrutinised by experts who question whether the response met the standards expected of emergency responders. An independent investigation has been launched to examine the officers’ actions and determine if any disciplinary measures are warranted. The case has highlighted broader issues about policing in high-pressure situations and the need for better training in assessing trauma victims on the spot.

The legal battle now sits at the intersection of several contentious issues: the rights of the accused, the fairness of the justice system, the handling of evidence, and the role of race in criminal cases. Digwa’s defence team maintains that the racial claim was genuine and that ignoring it undermines the prosecution’s case. They argue that if the murder was racially motivated, the sentence should reflect that rather than treating it as a simple assault. The prosecution counters that the racial element was invented to create sympathy or distract from the brutality of the attack.

Forensic evidence, they say, shows that the stabbing was not the work of a hate crime but a calculated act by someone who knew his victim.

The Court of Appeal will have to weigh these competing narratives carefully. It could uphold the original conviction if it finds the evidence compelling. At the same time, it may shorten or lengthen the minimum term depending on its assessment of the proportionality of the sentence. If the court decides the 21-year term was too lenient, it could increase the time Digwa must serve before becoming eligible for release on licence. Conversely, if it agrees with Digwa’s appeal against conviction, he could walk free or face a retrial altogether.

Either outcome would reshape the lives of Nowak’s family, who have already endured years of grief and uncertainty, and the wider community in Southampton, where the murder left a scar on the neighbourhood.

Public reaction to the appeal has been fierce. Many have welcomed the chance to revisit the case, arguing that the bodycam footage and the racial claim demand a fresh look at how justice was served. Others feel the appeal is Digwa’s way of delaying inevitable consequences and that the original conviction should stand. Social media has become a battleground, with users sharing the bodycam footage, the trial transcripts, and personal stories of victims of similar attacks. Some have organised vigils or online campaigns calling for the Court of Appeal to impose a harsher sentence.

Others have demanded a thorough review of the police response, arguing that the delay in providing aid to Nowak was unacceptable and could have been life-saving.

The case has also sparked wider discussions about sentencing guidelines for violent crimes. The 21-year minimum term is within the range allowed for murder, but prosecutors believe it failed to reflect the full extent of the harm. They point to the viciousness of the stabbing, the fact that Nowak was a vulnerable 18-year-old, and the trauma inflicted on his family. In their view, a longer minimum term would better serve the interests of justice and send a stronger deterrent signal. Digwa’s side, however, argues that the sentence was already severe enough and that any increase would be disproportionate.