PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Murder of Henry Nowak - 2 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of Henry Nowak.

Last December, Henry, aged just 18, was a first-year university student with his life ahead of him. He was kind, hard-working and loved by his family and friends. His murder, at the hands of Vickrum Digwa, was a horrifying act. Digwa murdered Henry and then lied about him as he lay dying, falsely accusing him of racism. It was an evil act.

I know that the thoughts of the whole House will now be with Henry’s family and friends, just as mine are. What they have been through is heartbreaking and, for most of us, unimaginable. I know that nothing can take their pain and loss away, but yesterday we saw some measure of justice. Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum term of 21 years. His mother, Kiran Kaur, has been convicted of assisting an offender. She is due to be sentenced on 17 July. The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised further charges against other members of the attacker’s family.

With further sentencing and possible charges pending, we must be cautious still in what we say about this case so that we do not place any proceedings at risk. However, I can and must pay tribute today to the dignified and powerful words of the Nowak family in the statement they gave after yesterday’s sentencing. They deserve answers, in particular about what happened on that awful night and the actions of the police officers who arrived on the scene.

I expect many in this House, and many more across this country, have now seen the police officer’s bodycam footage, which was released last night. It is, without question, a disturbing and tragic thing to see. People are rightly asking questions about how the situation was handled. They are shocked and disquieted to hear Henry’s words, “I can’t breathe.”

I know that it is difficult to wait any longer for answers, but there is a proper process for assessing whether there have been incidents of police misconduct, led by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It will determine what could and should have been done differently, and it will determine what action may need to be taken against individual officers. The family yesterday called on me

“to ensure the IOPC has the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”

I can confirm today that I will do so. The IOPC will be equipped and encouraged to act; to find the truth; and to ensure, if necessary, that there are consequences.

There have been accusations, I know, of two-tier policing, and that one community has been prioritised over another. It will be for the IOPC to determine the facts in this case—I cannot and will not comment on them—but let me say this on the question of preferential treatment more widely: the police in this country have a sacred duty to police without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is equal before the law; it is the promise upon which our whole justice system rests. The equality of every citizen is the foundation on which the openness, tolerance and generosity of this country rests.

Let me also be clear about one other thing—a dangerous undercurrent that I have seen in the reaction to this awful crime. Threats against police officers are utterly unacceptable. There can be no justification for intimidation, abuse or attempts to take the law into one’s own hands. A police officer unrelated to this case has been misidentified online and subjected to death threats. He has been forced to relocate, to protect himself and his family. Misinformation and inflammatory commentary is making a dreadful situation even worse. We must all, together, condemn it. We must also allow the facts to be established through the appropriate investigations and the courts, and we must do so calmly and responsibly.

The Nowak family, and Henry’s memory, deserve answers. The family have also called on us all to take action to address the daily tragedy of knife crime in this country. This Government are committed to halving knife crime in this decade. Since the start of this Parliament, we have made progress. Knife crime has fallen by 10%. Knife homicides are down 27%, and are at their lowest level in a decade, but clearly we must do more while there are still tragedies like this one. For that reason, we have recently published our halving knife crime plan. It sets out how we will go further to drive sustained reductions in violence. It brings together action across Government and society to stop people turning to knife crime, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. It includes a range of measures. It will see schools and families supported to address the root causes of knife crime through the establishment of 50 young futures hubs; police using new crime mapping tools to target enforcement more precisely, and making better use of stop and search; and cruel and exploitative drug gangs stopped from criminally exploiting children, which will prevent the knife violence that is driven by the county lines trade.

On knife controls, there have been calls to limit the right of Sikhs to carry their ceremonial knife, the kirpan, one of the five holy items in their faith. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019, passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to long kirpans. This included extending defences, so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons and used in religious and ceremonial contexts, but let me be clear: carrying the knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing, but using it, as so tragically occurred in this case, is quite another. It is a vile act, a crime of the utmost severity, and it will be met with the severest punishment.

Yesterday, the Nowak family ended their statement with a powerful call to us all: they did not want Henry’s death

“to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”

They quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer:

“This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder. ”

I echo those words. We cannot allow this murder to turn communities against one another. We must condemn those who seek personal political profit from tragedy. Instead, we must show who we really are in this country. This was a murder—a vile and violent crime. The punishment must be reserved for those who are responsible for the act. We do not believe in collective punishment in this country. Instead, we stand together against an act of pure evil. We condemn those who committed this heinous crime, not all those who share their faith or ethnicity.

Yesterday, a sentence was handed down in court. I know it will never be enough. The loss felt by Henry Nowak’s family and friends will last forever. A wonderful young man will never enjoy the promise of the life that stretched out before him. The evil acts of his murderer and accomplice will never be undone, but we can choose to use this moment to pursue positive change. We are still limited in what we can say—there is a sentence to be handed down, further charges may follow, and an IOPC investigation is ongoing—but I call on everyone here to be responsible in this moment, and to allow justice to run its full course. While we must be limited in what we can say, we must not be limited in how we act.

I will end with the words of the Nowak family, once more. Last night, they wrote that

“no other family should experience the heartbreak and horror of losing a child to knife crime.”

Let that be the challenge to us all, across this House, across Government and across society. It is the very least we can do to honour the memory of Henry Nowak. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

I thank the Home Secretary, and you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the Government came to the House today.

The murder of Henry Nowak is devastating for his family. He was an innocent young man on the way home when he was brutally killed. Henry’s family have suffered an unimaginable loss, and I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with them all. The evil murderer Vickrum Digwa lied from start to finish, including in a false allegation of racism. On arriving at the scene, the police appeared more concerned with the accusation of racism, and even the possibility that Digwa was injured, than with helping Henry. Henry told the police that he could not breathe nine times. He told them that he had been stabbed four times. The response from the officer, which we have all heard, was, “I don’t think you have, mate.”

Henry was handcuffed and dragged across the ground as he lay dying. Can you imagine what he must have felt as he cried out for help and was ignored—as the officers who should have worked to save him instead handcuffed him and inquired after the welfare of his killer, standing just inches away? Henry’s dad Mark said:

“Henry did not die with dignity. He did not die with the care he deserved. He lost consciousness before anyone believed him.”

We need the IOPC to urgently and transparently report on how it was that the police attending were more concerned with the accusation of racism than with helping a dying man.

We cannot tolerate a situation in which false allegations of racism by criminals are believed. We cannot allow the colour of someone’s skin to be a consideration in how the police or other public services treat people, yet that has happened. Just recently, we learned that Valdo Calocane, who murdered three people in Nottingham, was not sectioned by mental health professionals because they thought there was

“an over-representation of young black males in mental health detention”.

The consequent failure to section Valdo Calocane, in part because he was black, led directly to the murder of three innocent people. The headteacher of Axel Rudakubana was accused of racist stereotyping when she described Rudakubana as a threat to safety, and the risk assessment was watered down. Rudakubana, of course, went on to stab and murder three young girls at a Southport dance class.

This has not happened by accident; it is enshrined in the police’s own policy documents. The police anti-racism commitment, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, urges police forces to reverse-engineer arrest rates for ethnic groups so that those rates are the same, even though the offending rates are different, by treating different ethnic groups differently. Let that sink in for a moment: an official police document actually says that people should be treated differently based on the colour of their skin. I have said before at this Dispatch Box—at least twice—that that document should be withdrawn. The dangerous ideology of so-called anti-racism, which allows people to be treated differently based on race, must end. Extreme activists have hijacked the policymaking process, and this is where that has led. It has no place in policing; it has no place anywhere. Does the Home Secretary agree that the so-called police anti-racism commitment must urgently be withdrawn? It is morally wrong and dangerous. Police forces must focus on catching criminals and keeping the public safe. They must simply treat everyone exactly the same.

I will finish with the words yesterday of Mark Nowak, Henry’s father. He said:

“Henry was 18. He was kind, ambitious, loved and full of promise. He had his whole life ahead of him. That future was stolen from him, and no verdict or sentence will ever give it back.”

It is true that nothing can bring Henry back, but let us ensure that no one ever again experiences what Henry did in his last tragic moments.

Let me thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, and the tone in which he has reflected on this horrific murder and the words of the family, which he knows that I share.

I would normally let the right hon. Gentleman’s initial point slide, but there is far too much misinformation floating around on social media for me to just leave it unchallenged. On the point about the Government coming to the House, he will know that the proceedings and sentencing concluded at 4 o’clock yesterday. We said that we would come to the House immediately thereafter, and we have presented ourselves here today. We have responded in an appropriate way, and had all the facts and all the judge’s remarks at our disposal for our review before coming to this House. It is important that we respond in these moments in a measured way, and that is what the Government have sought to do.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to evidence in the Valdo Calocane inquiry. He will know that the inquiry into the Nottingham attacks is well under way. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at this Dispatch Box, to pre-empt any findings that the inquiry might make, but all the actions taken, and assumptions made, by professionals from the public services, including the police and the health service, are subject to scrutiny in that inquiry. I am sure that we will return to those matters when the inquiry reports.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to phase 1 of the Southport inquiry on the horrific murders, and the findings relating to how the public service systems centred on the danger that Axel Rudakubana might have posed to himself, given his mental health diagnosis, and did not take into account the danger he potentially posed to others. The right hon. Gentleman will know that recommendations for change have been made in this area, which the Government will respond to fully in due course. Let me be very clear to him and to all Members in the House that in all such matters, when it comes to how we engage with our public services and how they assess risk, the only important factor is the risk that an individual poses—not their race, religion or anything else. We will not tolerate a situation in which other, irrelevant factors are taken into account. I repeat that all are equal before the law, and every public service needs to bear that in mind.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the police anti-racism commitment. He will obviously remember that the race action plan for the police began life under the previous Conservative Government—in fact, I am old enough to remember when Theresa May called out the disproportionate use of stop and search in black communities in particular. He will know that the way policing works in this country is by consent. It is important that the police retain the confidence of all the communities they police, and I think he will acknowledge that there is a history and a context here relating to racism and the police. Whatever changes are made, it is important that nobody over-corrects or course-corrects in such a way that all of us citizens are no longer equal before the law.

This Government will always ensure that the police, in fulfilling their sacred duties to keep our communities safe, always act without fear or favour, and always ensure that every citizen is treated equally. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to do down or ignore the historical and legitimate concerns from some communities about institutional racism as well as differential treatment. I condemn every and all types of differential treatment; I do not stand for it. My own track record as a Government Minister shows that I will always act when there is evidence of differential treatment, and it is absolutely vital that that message is heard loud and clear across the whole of our country.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Henry was a popular and much-loved student at the University of Southampton, and his murder has horrified our city. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) commend everyone at the university for their response and their support for the university community following this tragedy. Like many, I have watched the bodycam footage, and it is both heartbreaking and infuriating. It makes it plain for all to see how Henry posed no threat that would warrant being handcuffed, yet he was treated as a criminal based on the lies of his murderer. No one in their right mind thinks that one Sikh represents all Sikhs or that one or two police officers represent the entire police force; as Henry’s father has said, this is about murder, our response to it and our prevention of it. As such, I have two questions for my right hon. Friend.

We have a knife problem in this country. That is why we have taken early steps to ban zombie knives and crack down on knife sellers, but it is obvious that that is not enough and we have to go further. Will the Secretary of State commit to clarifying a set of tough and consistent knife laws with the resources to enforce them, so that we can actually move on? Secondly, I echo the words of Henry’s dad, as the Secretary of State did, and ask her to guarantee that the IOPC will have

“the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”

Will she guarantee that? The catastrophic errors that were made when police officers got to Henry must never happen again.

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and his questions. I give him that guarantee: the IOPC will, and does, have the resources it needs to conduct its investigation, and I know that it will do so with the full independence that our system affords it. I understand that the IOPC intends to report finally within the next three months, and I believe that a meeting is now taking place with the family—some contact had been made before, but the IOPC was waiting for the end of the criminal trial. Of course, it will do its job; it is getting on with doing its job, and I expect it to report as quickly as possible, but I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee he seeks.

My hon. Friend is right that we have a knife crime problem in this country, which is why the Government have a landmark commitment to halving knife crime over a decade. It is why we have launched the knife crime action plan, and I reassure him that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its historic mission.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

This is a heartbreaking case of a young man who should be alive today with a happy life ahead of him. Because of the forces of evil, he is not. On behalf of my party, I extend my sympathies to Henry’s family and friends, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement.

The independent investigation should uncover how one evil individual was not picked up despite apparently exhibiting disturbing behaviours that saw him ejected from his place of worship and having an obsession with weapons. Of course, police officers work under high stress and must make split-second decisions, and we rely on their good judgment every day. Tragically, in this case the officers made a clear and terrible mistake—one that failed Henry and has broken the hearts of his family. The investigation must ensure that recommendations are made so that nothing like this can happen again, but as the Home Secretary said, there must be no doubt that the police officers we see on our streets must be treated with respect.

Before going any further, we must acknowledge that Digwa betrayed his faith and his community, and he deserves his punishment. Regardless of that, when we in this House discuss this issue, it is incumbent on all of us to bear in mind the words of Henry’s father Mark:

“We do not want Henry’s murder to be used to create further hatred, division or tension.”

Since the sentencing and the release of the harrowing video showing the sickening incident, the vast majority of politicians have responded to this matter with due sensitivity, and that reflects well on this House. It is therefore all the more disturbing that we have seen the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) once again using tragedy to divide British communities. We all know why he does this—he has made a career out of it, and has become rich as a result—but we are also well aware, as is he, that his actions are divisive, dangerous and fundamentally un-British. The rights of British people to observe their faith are hard won; they cannot be contingent on the colour of any individual’s skin. Those rights come with a responsibility, one that Digwa has betrayed, and he must now serve his well-deserved punishment.

Of course, as other Members have said, we are too aware of the tragedies of knife crime and the problem it represents in this country.

Order.

That must be tackled, as Mark Nowak has rightly said. The judge’s remarks in this case tell us that the knife being carried by the murderer was different from that typically carried by British Sikhs as a part of their faith.

Order. Mr Wilkinson, it is no use holding your hand up as though you are some policeman. I am policing this statement on the basis of the time allowed, and you are quite a bit over. I hope you are coming to the end of your question now.

I am, Mr Speaker, and I apologise.

As Mark Nowak has said, the outcome here should not be further division. In that spirit and in Henry’s memory, we must work together to ensure that this kind of tragedy is not allowed to happen again.

I welcome the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, and associate myself with his words about the family and their reaction to what has happened. I am not sure there was a specific question in there for me, but if there are other things that the hon. Member wishes to pick up with me, I would be very happy to engage with him on other points of detail that he maybe was not able to come on to.

For the benefit of the whole House, I reiterate that anyone who uses this tragedy—this horrific, vile act of murder—to stoke further division in our country should be rejected by everyone across this House. Political grandstanding and further division are not what is needed; clear-eyed action and a commitment to ensuring that all of our citizens are equal before the law of our collective land is what is needed.

This is a terrible incident, and my heart goes out to Henry’s family. Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that some have said that the Macpherson inquiry has caused the police to hold back when dealing with people who perpetrate crimes and who may be from an ethnic minority? Does she agree that nothing in the Macpherson inquiry suggests that the police should behave in that way or excuses the extraordinary behaviour of the police at the scene of this crime, and does she think that what needs to be reviewed is the way in which police are trained to deal with incidents of this sort? It seems to me that what happened at the scene of this crime falls way below what we expect of the police.

Police officers must apply the law fairly, without fear or favour, to every single person they serve. They work incredibly hard and get it right the vast majority of the time, and where mistakes are made, it is right that they are properly investigated and examined. The whole House should remember that our police officers run towards danger every day in order to keep our communities safe. As my hon. Friend will know, because of the ongoing independent IOPC investigation, I do not think it is appropriate to comment further on the specifics of this case.

I call the Father of the House.

I agree with everything the Home Secretary says. I agree that we should not weaponise this issue, but neither should we tiptoe around it. The truth is that many white people in this country feel that the police are so terrified of being called racist that they either underreact, as in the case of the appalling grooming scandal, or they overreact, as in this case, so there is a role for the Home Secretary now. She needs to summon in top police officers and say, “Things have got to change. We are all equal. Don’t be terrified of what people think about you—just carry out the law as you’re supposed to do as police officers.”

I have made it very clear from this Dispatch Box and over the course of my tenure as Home Secretary that all are equal before the law, and the police must always act without fear and without favour towards any one group. I do not think it is helpful for us to start pitting either majority or different minority communities against one another; that is not what this moment requires.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is always a balance to be struck—there must not be underreaction or, indeed, overreaction. I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the police get that balance right, and as I say, our police officers run towards danger every single day to keep us safe. I will always scrutinise all these actions to make sure that our police service is functioning as it should, so that every single citizen in our country, regardless of the colour of their skin or the faith that they have or may not have, can be absolutely certain that they will always be treated equally, and that whatever complaint they have will always be investigated in the way we would all expect.

Order. You are meant to be speaking through the Chair, not across the Chamber.

Order. I started this Session by calling for tolerance and respect. I do not expect Members to be pointing at each other and attacking each other. Members speak through the Chair. We want an orderly Chamber that is respectful. This does nobody any good.

I reiterate for my hon. Friend that religious freedom is an important principle that this Government respect. It has been respected by different Governments of different party political persuasions, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. As I said in my statement, we are not a country that collectively punishes an entire group of people for the actions of individuals. The responsibility for this murder rests with the murderer, and he has now faced justice and been sentenced. That is the right way for these matters to proceed.

I will also say something about the tone of this debate. It is right for the whole House to remember that Henry Nowak’s family and friends are watching. The way that we conduct ourselves in this place can be passionate, but it must not result in name calling and in just shouting different political views. I do not think we should stand for the politicisation of this murder. There are lessons to be learned and further issues to be drawn out from what has happened, once the IOPC has concluded its investigation. I am sure that we will debate that here in the future. The way that we conduct the debate matters just as much as what is said.

This is an appalling and sickening tragedy. Words cannot express my heartbreak for Henry’s family and my fury at the system that has led to this. We have all seen the body-worn video footage. In a previous role, part of my job was to review that footage and give an independent judgment. In this case, it is clear to everyone that the police did not act appropriately and proportionately. There are many good police officers who work hard to keep us safe, but on that night, these police officers displayed no concern for Henry. Immediate action should have been taken to try to save his life, but instead Henry was put in handcuffs and mocked as he lay dying. Those police officers have serious questions to answer. Can the Home Secretary explain what action the Government will take to ensure that every officer involved is held accountable for the decisions they have made, so that the public can have confidence that we will all be treated equally under the law?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the IOPC is investigating this matter. It will be free to conclude that investigation using all the powers it has and all of its evidence-gathering abilities. He will know, having reviewed such footage in the past, that what is publicly available is three minutes of a much longer incident, but the IOPC will be able to review every bit of bodycam footage in its totality, as well as other evidence that sheds light on the context of the incident, what the police officers saw and how they reacted to it. The IOPC is free to make recommendations not just on specific conduct, but on wider lessons that should be learned. I reassure him that once the IOPC has reported and made its findings, I will make sure that I personally update the House.

I pay tribute to my constituent, Henry Nowak, a bright young man at the start of a life that held so much promise. The turnout at his funeral and the outpouring of community support show that he had an impact well beyond his young years. I pay tribute to his family, and in particular to Mark Nowak, his father. Many here have quoted his words calling for Henry’s death not to lead to more division and hatred. Henry’s sister, Olivia, made space in the early days of her own grief to support his friends. That speaks to the family and their courage, bravery and dignity in dealing with one of the most tragic and devastating things that any of us could ever imagine going through.

Like many in this House, I have watched the body-worn camera footage that was released last night, and I watched it with horror. I cannot imagine what Henry’s family felt seeing that, knowing that it was their son’s last moments. They expected help from the police, but when Henry lay dying, what he got was accusation and he was disbelieved. This can never happen again. What will the Home Secretary do to meet Henry’s family’s calls to tackle the national emergency that is knife crime? Like many families who have suffered a loss from this appalling crime, Henry’s family have called for his death not to be in vain and for lessons to be learned, so that they can go forward to see that his legacy is that no one else has to suffer that grief.

I would welcome the Home Secretary’s assurances that the IOPC investigation will be thorough and fully resourced and that no stone will be left unturned, so that the family can have the answers they need and deserve, and can know why their son was treated as a criminal while the criminal was treated with much more dignity than their son. Will she ensure that the family’s needs, wishes and voices are heard throughout this inquiry?

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her powerful contribution as Henry’s Member of Parliament, and I give her the assurance that she seeks in relation to the IOPC investigation. That investigation is continuing at pace, and I know that the family are being engaged with. If there are any concerns about the process, I invite her to let me know immediately. I will personally ensure that any concerns are dealt with, so that the family can have confidence in the IOPC process. This Government have acknowledged the epidemic of knife crime in our country and our imperative to act on it. That is why we have our landmark commitment to halve knife crime over a decade and have launched the knife crime action plan, which is a resourced package of measures designed to deal with the scourge of knife crime.

I give my hon. Friend reassurance, exactly as I said in my statement, that we will leave no stone unturned in dealing with knife crime. We do so in the name of all victims of knife crime, including Henry. Their loss must not be in vain, and we must learn the lessons that will prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future.

When Henry lay on the floor, he warned that he had been stabbed four times and he said that he could not breathe nine times, yet the officer chose to cuff him, rather than treat him. That officer should be in court, being prosecuted for a total dereliction of duty, but the bigger question is this: why do officers behave in this way? Is it because they have been taught repeatedly to elevate perceptions of ethnic minority communities over the safety of white British people? That sickness contributed to the killings by Rudakubana, by Calocane in Nottingham, and now by Digwa. It is a sickness rooted in the anti-racism agenda. Will the Home Secretary root it out? Will she return to equality before the law for all? Will she say that when it comes to public safety, white lives matter just as much as anyone else’s?

I do not think this is a moment to pit white Britons against non-white Britons; this is a moment to reflect on a horrific tragedy. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the IOPC is investigating the conduct of those police officers. It would be wholly inappropriate for a Member of this House to seek to pre-empt an independent investigation into the potential misconduct of police officers. That IOPC investigation will look at individual conduct, but also at the wider lessons that can be learned from this case. I will personally ensure that all lessons are learned and acted upon.

It is a fundamental principle—not just of the British criminal justice system, but of who and what we are as a country—that we are all equal before the law of our land. That applies regardless of the colour of one’s skin, and regardless of whether someone is a non-white Brit whose family arrived here 50 years ago or 10 years ago, or whether they are a white Brit whose family have been here for 300 years or more. We are all equal before the law of our land, and we should all support that principle but not use it to pit our citizens against one another. That is not what this moment demands.

I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the Chamber this afternoon. As many hon. and right hon. Members have said, no one can fail to be moved by watching the footage and seeing a young life being wasted like that. The inhumane and degrading treatment that Henry had to go through in his last few moments is something that will stay with the family when the news coverage has moved on and those police officers have been prosecuted, because when someone is killed by a murderer who is intent on killing— regardless of race—it is the families and communities that have to deal with the long-term impact.

Many of us in this Chamber have had to comfort constituents who have lost a family member through knife crime. This epidemic across the UK has to stop. How is it possible that the killer was allowed to roam the streets with a 21 cm knife, freely stab someone and then lie? It is really important that we make sure that this Government get to grips with that. As soon as the IOPC concludes the findings of its investigation, will the Home Secretary come back to the House and make sure that the Government adequately respond, so that we are not back here again and do not have to console another family whose life has been taken by knife crime?

Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance. While the investigation is taking place, it is right that we give the IOPC the space it needs to do its important work. It would be wholly wrong for Ministers to pre-empt what findings might be made in the future, but as soon as those findings are made, I will ensure that the Government respond.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. We in this House need to be careful about our response to what is a sad loss of life of a young man who was going to a vibrant university in a fantastic and welcoming city, with the rest of his life supposedly ahead of him. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said—I am grateful to her for saying that the IOPC will receive full resourcing—has she done any thinking about what other investigations her Department might need to do into the conduct of Hampshire constabulary? Can she confirm whether the officers in question have been suspended, pending the investigation? Could she also outline whether she is currently looking at whether she needs to make changes to the exemptions to carrying knives for religious or cultural purposes?

The question of suspensions is a matter for the IOPC because of the way it makes its initial findings and then reacts to the evidence as it all becomes available. Of course, now that the criminal proceedings have concluded, the IOPC will be able to ramp up and go faster in that process. Again, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to be sighted on that or to seek to direct it in any way, but I know that staff at the IOPC are watching. If clarifications are needed or questions need answering, I am sure that they will respond, but they are wholly independent of Government.

The exemption for the carrying of knives for religious and ceremonial purposes has been a long-standing arrangement, as a way of balancing public safety and religious freedom. It has been supported by successive Governments, including this one, and we are not seeking to move away from our respect for religious freedom. The wider context is an important question that is always worth serious consideration, but my approach would be to engage directly with representatives of the Sikh community and knife crime campaigners, rather than pitting those two groups against one another, because these are issues of a common cause. I will repeat the point I made in my statement: there is a world of difference between a person acting out of religious observance and carrying something as an act of faith, and somebody unsheathing that weapon and using it to kill somebody. That individual has met the full force of the law.

As you know, Mr Speaker, there is no bigger champion of policing in this House than me, but the body-worn footage of Henry Nowak’s death is gut-wrenching and the police response, on the basis of what we know so far, is unfathomable. It is right that the IOPC is investigating, but as everyone around policing knows, such investigations have often taken far too long—sometimes many years—which is not good for anybody involved. Can the Home Secretary assure me that she will press the IOPC to report as quickly as possible—most of all, for Henry’s family?

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully from deep personal and professional experience, and I pay tribute to him. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have had many concerns about the length of time it sometimes takes the IOPC to report—concerns that I have raised with the IOPC directly since I have been Home Secretary. However, given that the investigation started in December, the criminal investigation and case in relation to the murderer have only just concluded, and the IOPC has said that it expects to report within three months, I believe that this investigation is proceeding at the pace that the House would expect. I am sure that the IOPC is reflecting on the tenor of today’s debate, and will understand the need for urgency and to make sure that the family have answers as quickly as is humanly possible.

My thoughts are with Henry Nowak’s family, friends and the local community. The prosecution said that the perpetrator had a “weapons obsession”. It should not have been so easy for somebody with a weapons obsession to amass an arsenal of knives. What is the Minister doing to reduce the availability of dangerous knives on our streets?

The hon. Lady makes a really important point. She will know that we have legislated through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which became law just a few short weeks ago. The measures within the Act will be implemented at pace by this Government; they relate to the possession of weapons and the buying of weapons—whether online or elsewhere—and there are new duties on sellers of knives to report larger sales or bulk sales. The Government have introduced a broad range of measures to deal with the scourge of knife crime, and those measures have just become law. We will ensure that the law is implemented as quickly as possible, so that we can get on top of this issue.

The death of Henry Nowak is a horrifying tragedy, and my thoughts are with his family, friends and community. We must honour the words of his father by not using this tragedy to create further hatred, division or tension, and the House should not go against those wishes. Henry’s family want action so that no other family goes through what they are going through right now. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that she will go further and faster to tackle knife crime, so that no one fears walking the streets of the UK?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Yes, I will.

Can the Home Secretary please make sure that the findings of the IOPC report are shared with Police Scotland and all police forces across these islands in order to ensure that any recommended structural or procedural changes are made, and that lessons can be learned by all forces and then implemented?

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Although some of these responsibilities are devolved, I hope that other legislatures in our country will show an interest. My Ministers and I certainly engage with our partners in the devolved Administrations. We will continue to do so, and we will discuss this matter as well.

I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As an Amritdhari Sikh, I wear the five Ks every day as part of my religious observance, including the kirpan, and as a Sikh, I really struggle to express the feelings of sheer horror that this case has generated within me, my family and my friends. It absolutely has been a horror.

The senseless murder of Henry Nowak should be condemned in its entirety by everybody. A young man’s life has been taken in his prime, and I wish to express my and my constituency’s full sympathy with and condolences for the family of Henry Nowak, who have shown incredible dignity in their grief. I totally condemn the action of Vickrum Digwa, the mindless, senseless murder and the lies. There is simply no religious justification for his actions. I am relieved that our criminal justice system and the courts came to the same conclusion, and that sentiment is shared universally across the Sikh community.

This case has raised many aspects of concern for my constituents—Sikh and non-Sikh—including issues of safety and knife crime, and the freedom to practise one’s faith. Will the Secretary of State meet me and colleagues to discuss these issues further?

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Let me again emphasise the dignity and the grace shown by Henry’s family. Their response has been something I do not believe I would have been capable of, if I had been in their shoes, and it is an example to us all.

On the broader issues, and there will be many issues in relation to this case, once the IOPC investigation has concluded we will be able to draw further conclusions on the facts, the police response and the wider problems. I am always happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the different issues raised in this case, and in particular how we get the right balance between the religious freedoms he and I both enjoy as members of faith minorities in our country and the need to make sure that public protection is never compromised.

Henry Nowak’s tragic murder is, sadly, stark proof that we have become a country where we no longer treat everyone as equal under the law. Does the Home Secretary agree it is time to put a stop to the political correctness that has overpowered common-sense policing, and will she commit to ending the nonsense of police cultural competency training being put ahead of protecting every citizen regardless of race?

Let me reiterate my belief and expectation that the police must always act without fear or favour and treat all citizens equally before the law. I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the vast majority of our police officers run towards danger every day to keep us all safe, and in the vast majority of cases they get the balance right between how they respond in a specific case and, more broadly, how they keep communities safe. Where there are issues, lessons must be learned; I am sure that, once the IOPC investigation has concluded, we will do that.

I think that for all of us as MPs, the time we spend with families who lose a family member in horrific circumstances stays with us throughout our career. I know that in my community there will be many parents who, sadly, have lost children to knife crime, who will have seen Mark Nowak’s statement and felt every single word, and who will want to send their condolences to the family. They will also be acutely aware of how difficult a watch that body camera footage was, and of his words about not seeing the tragedy used to “inflame division”.

Given that, and given how some people are interpreting this matter and the misinformation that is circulating, what thought has the Home Secretary given to ensuring trusted sources of information on this issue? There is an important need for scrutiny and transparency about what has happened—and in a context where there is so much misinformation, we need sources of light, not heat. What more could the Home Office do on that matter?

We in the Home Office have a responsibility, which we seek always to fulfil, to make sure that we act calmly and responsibly, with the full facts at our disposal; if we do not have the full facts at our disposal, we wait until we do before we comment, in order not to put out misleading or false information.

My hon. Friend is right that the wider environment is very challenging. Of course the Government are taking action through other Departments, such as through the Online Safety Act 2023, in relation to digital platforms. I am sure we will return to those conversations, because there is no doubt that, on social media in particular, the environment makes it very challenging to establish the truth, rather than misinformation and straight-up lies. We collectively have a responsibility in this House to make sure that we shine light rather than heat on these matters, so that we can hold our country together and make sure that all our citizens are treated fairly.

Our sympathies go out to the family, who must have been horrified by what they saw on the police footage. How have we reached a stage in this country where, when the police go to an incident, they arrest a dying man because they are afraid of being accused of racism by his murderer? This is affecting the police right across the United Kingdom. Only this week, in a park on the edge of my constituency, the police were called because a gathering of Muslim men were seen to be carrying weapons. No arrests were made, excuses were made for carrying the weapons, and the anger of the community is palpable.

Would the Secretary of State make it clear to the police that policing should not be based on fear of racism, or direction by chief constables, or on the colour of people’s skin? The police should carry out their duty impartially; two-tier policing only diminishes the police and undermines their credibility and their standing in the community, which is bad for everybody.

There can, of course, be no suggestion of two-tier policing; we would never—no one would ever—stand for that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the police respond to danger every single day and have to make quick decisions, usually in very difficult circumstances. In the vast majority of cases they do get things right, and it is important that we acknowledge that broader picture of policing. Of course, when things go wrong or the balance is not struck correctly, that should be investigated and scrutinised, and lessons must always be learned.

I would not want us to be in a position where we just accept that there are big problems with how our police, generally speaking, approach their job. I do agree that any instances where it looks as though something has gone wrong cost public confidence in policing, but that is why we have the independent arrangements with the IOPC to investigate fully and make findings of fact, on which the Government and others can take action.

Henry Nowak’s murder was a senseless, evil act, a criminal act, which Vickrum Digwa bears responsibility for. It is horrific that he made false claims to evade that responsibility. The actions of a perpetrator do not represent the whole community, and I know the Sikh community in the UK wholly condemn them. Many of us are deeply distressed about the circumstances of Henry’s death and his treatment in his final moments. How will the Secretary of State ensure that those lessons are learned, and that Henry’s family are put first and fully considered? On knife crime, how will we ensure that the root causes are dealt with and that resources are provided to agencies and to communities?

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the knife crime action plan is funded, and we have put significant money behind violence reduction units and other measures that we know are imperative to deal with knife crime in our country. Let me assure her again that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the House is updated.

Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?

On policing practice and the specifics of this case, that is precisely what the IOPC is looking at, because it takes into account the context and the expectations of police officers given the specific dangers that they face. The IOPC will look into that and, once it has made its findings of fact, I will of course return to the House.

On the issue of differential treatment, the right hon. Member will know, as a long-standing Member of this House, that we have had many debates from the opposite end of the race spectrum, if I might put it that way. Today, we are talking primarily about the white community in this instance, but there have been many debates in this House about differential treatment for minority communities. That is why I do not think it is helpful for us to look at this issue through a community-specific lens; it is much broader than that. I will of course ensure that I always engage with the police on the specifics of their policies, but it is not my view that the police are institutionally or systemically operating a system of differential treatment. We will always make sure that we guard against that, and I will work with the police to make sure it never happens.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s fierce rejection of two-tier policing and of any suggestion that people should be judged differently according to their colour. The footage is one of the most sickening things I have ever seen, and my heart goes out to the Nowak family who had to witness it. The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we must wait for the IOPC investigation, but if it does turn out that some kind of misguided application of the culture of policing has led to the victim not being believed while the murderer was believed, what more will she do to ensure that every single police officer hears loud and clear her message that everyone deserves to be policed in exactly the same way, regardless of the colour of their skin?

Let me give my hon. Friend the assurance that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded and it has made its findings on the specific circumstances of this case, I will make sure that we return to the House so that we have an opportunity to debate collectively what the correct response will be. Let me also reassure him and everybody else that I will never stand for a system where there is any suggestion of differential treatment before the law. We are all equal before the law and every lesson we learn must always live up to that abiding principle.

Henry Nowak was murdered near my constituency and local people are rightly furious with Hampshire police—not only the officers who attended the scene, but those leading the force. It is important to remember that Henry’s murderer accused him of racism. In honour of Henry’s legacy, it is important that we are all abundantly clear that the judge found absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.

Does the Home Secretary agree that a false accusation of racism against a white person is just as bad as, if not worse than, a legitimate claim of racism, because of the deceit? Does she also agree that, watching the bodycam footage, it is clear that police officers treated Henry with disdain, contempt and arguably negligence because of the colour of his skin? We are hearing No. 10 say that two-tier policing does not exist. I ask the Home Secretary: where is the leadership today? British people are furious. The leadership is not coming from the Government.

I disagree entirely with the right hon. and learned Lady. Great leadership has already been shown by the family of Henry Nowak in the tenor of their response and their statement, and in their desire—rightly, in my view—not to see this murder used as a tool for furthering division in our country. We would all do well to take our lead from Henry’s family.

I am in the House today; I am answering questions and I have undertaken to come back once the IOPC investigation has concluded. The right hon. and learned Lady is a former Home Secretary and will know that those independent arrangements exist so that people can have confidence in the findings made in cases such as this and can know that they are made without political interference or for political ends.

On the broader point about false allegations that the right hon. and learned Lady made, lies are lies and they must be called out as such. Where a lie is criminal or leads to criminality, it must face the full force of the law. That is what has happened in this case. There has been a measure of justice, because the criminal case has concluded, the murderer has been found guilty of murder and the judge has made further findings in relation to the circumstances of the case. I urge her and some of her colleagues, when commenting on this case, to stick to the facts as they have been established.

I thank the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary for the way they introduced this very sensitive issue.

The murder of Henry Nowak was a wicked act of brutality. His family and all those who loved him have been left with unimaginable grief, mourning their brother, their son and their friend, who they will never, ever get back. I know Members across the House share my devastation at this vile murder by this vile individual. However, some Members have been using this horrific incident for political capital, spreading disinformation for their own gain. Does the Home Secretary agree that politicians have a responsibility to act with decorum, and to focus on Henry, who lost his life, and his grieving family, who have lost a son and a brother, rather than fanning the flames of division?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that on this matter we should take our lead from Henry’s family, who have set an example for us all to follow.

“I’ve been stabbed” versus “He racially abused me.” How are the Government going to rebuild public confidence in our culture and in institutions that have attempted to rank people according to perceived oppression, rather than judging each person on their actions and on reality?

Let me just repeat to the hon. Gentleman the point I have already made in this debate: there can be no suggestion of two-tier policing in our country. In the vast majority of cases the police apply the law fairly and without fear or favour, and they must always do so. Once the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the specific lessons from the circumstances of this case are learned and acted upon.

This was a vile act and a crime of the upmost severity, and I am pleased that it has been treated as such by our courts. The case is about the murder of a young man, and our thoughts should remain with Henry Nowak’s family. We do not know why the officers acted as they did, but there is nothing in the Macpherson inquiry that can be blamed for the apparent lack of humanity displayed in the body-worn camera footage. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we should reflect on the words of Henry’s father, Mark Nowak, who asked that his son’s death should

“not…be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”?

Does she agree that this is entirely what the interventions of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and others seek to do?

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I agree with him; he is right to refer to the words of Henry’s father. Many Members have rightly referred to those words today and we should all bear them in mind. Let me reiterate that I will ensure that all the lessons that must be learned from this case are learned and acted upon properly, but this case must turn on its own facts and its own circumstances. It is not to be used, in my view, to unwind other changes that were made to rebuild public confidence in policing.

This cowardly murder is not a reflection on the Sikh community, which has integrated itself into the UK with honour and modesty. I understand that the weapon wielded was not that traditionally carried by Sikhs. However, I believe this murder may give reasonable grounds to review existing exemptions to knife legislation on the grounds of religious reasons and national dress. I know that the Home Secretary wants to halve knife crime within the next 10 years. What message do the exemptions give? Is she honestly going to rule out even a review?

As I said earlier, our religious freedoms and the arrangements we have are of long standing and have been designed to strike the right balance between religious freedom and public protection. I said earlier that the wider question is worthy of serious consideration, which is what I will give to it, but I would want to start that process by discussing the matter with the Sikh community themselves, knife crime campaigners and the police. I think that is the right way to proceed, rather than launching a formal review. As the judge found in this case, this was not an act of religious observance. The minute the knife was unsheathed to be used, it became a murder weapon and the murderer has now faced the full force of the law.

My thoughts are with the family and friends of Henry Nowak. It was absolutely gut-wrenching to see the video footage from the body-worn camera. In Hampshire, the murder has left people deeply shocked not only by the violence of the act, but by the circumstances as he lay dying. I am pleased to hear that the IOPC will have the resources it needs to fully investigate. I am also glad to hear that the Hampshire police and crime commissioner has said that she will ensure the recommendations are fully implemented. Mistakes have clearly been made, but will the Home Secretary ensure that Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary receives any support needed to implement the IOPC findings in full, and that lessons on victim recognition, officer judgment and impartiality are acted on swiftly?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, the Minister for Policing met the police and crime commissioner earlier today.

Henry’s heartbroken father has said that Henry’s family do not want his murder to

“be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”

I pray that we all heed those words in this House. This heinous crime is made worse by the shocking police response, and lessons must be learnt. What will the Home Secretary do differently to crack down on the epidemic of knife crime, such as creating a dedicated knife crime Minister? What steps will she take to ensure that our Sikh community, who are overwhelmingly peaceful and integrated, are not held collectively responsible by those who wish to divide us?

The Government have a landmark commitment to halve the levels of knife crime in this country over the next decade. We have our landmark knife crime action plan, which is a funded action plan. The Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in that commitment. This Government will strain every sinew to deliver on that.

In the ’80s and ’90s in this country, many police officers carried out their duties in a prejudicial and racist way. I am proud of having worked alongside many others to eliminate that racism as much as we could. However, we are now left with what is perhaps a more difficult problem to deal with, because many police officers and other public servants are now frightened that they will be accused of racism in carrying out those duties. What actions can the Home Secretary and the Cabinet take to reassure people who are accused of racism that proper process will be followed and that they will not just be left out of a job forever?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the historical context of policing in this country and the question of racism itself. Many minority communities have been on the receiving end of that treatment in the past. It is right that the system as a whole has sought to learn those lessons and to deliver a policing service in which we can all be confident so that we know we will all be treated fairly under the law. I will ensure that continues to be the case going forward.

On his question, when accusations are made—whether in a legal and policing context or throughout other parts of the public sector—they are just that: accusations. We should remember the principles of our broader justice system when it comes to innocence, findings of guilt and the fairness of procedures to give people a chance to explain themselves without findings of fact being made against them before that has happened. I expect to see that happen throughout the criminal justice system, but also throughout wider society.

When the race card was played by his murderer, was Henry Nowak treated differently because of the colour of his skin, causing the innocent victim to be handcuffed and the murderer to be pandered to?

The reaction of the police officers attending the scene to the circumstances they faced there is what the IOPC is investigating. Once that investigation is complete and findings of fact are made, I will be happy to discuss the further lessons with the hon. Gentleman and others in the House.

I join colleagues across the House in offering my thoughts and prayers to Henry’s family over his vile and disgusting murder. Unfortunately, far-right groups in Blackpool and across the country are weaponising Henry’s death to create more hatred. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those in Blackpool and across the country and ensure that we honour the powerful call from Henry’s family, who do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension in this country?

I join my hon. Friend and Members across the House in condemning the actions of the far right utterly. They are completely unacceptable. We should all take a stand against the far right weaponising this horrifying murder—this terrible tragedy for the Nowak family—to spread further division, which is not what this moment requires. I hope that that stand has broad support across the House.

My thoughts are with Henry’s family. As I listened to his dad yesterday, I could not help but cry at the loss that his family have suffered, and at the fact that the video footage will be etched on their minds forever.

It appears that we have an undercurrent of anti-white racism brewing in the UK. We see white people jailed for allegedly inciting racial hatred on social media, while members of other communities are not even prosecuted for viciously attacking police officers. Henry Nowak deserved better—he did not deserve to be attacked; he did not deserve to spend his final moments pleading for help and saying that he could not breathe; he did not deserve not to be believed; and, above all, he did not deserve to die. Why did it take this Government until yesterday to speak out on this matter, while they run to virtue signal on many other cases? Is the UK no longer a safe place for people like Henry Nowak?

The reason the Government did not comment until yesterday is because a criminal case was going through our courts. Members of this House, and certainly members of the Government, are not commentators for the purposes of social media. Ministers of the Crown must respect the independence of our criminal justice system and the ability of our courts and independent legal processes to function so that, when findings of fact are made, a conviction happens and a sentence is passed; it commands public confidence across the whole country, because everyone knows it was not interfered with politically; and that it was, in fact, an independent assessment of the facts of a case. I remind the hon. Lady and all Members that that is the responsibility we all have. I urge her to reflect on that.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I offer my condolences to Henry Nowak’s family, who have been through an appalling ordeal. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide that Henry’s family’s concerns about the initial police response are being fully considered by the relevant authorities and that lessons will be learned from this terrible incident, so that no other family has to see their loved one doubted in their final moments by those who should be helping them?

Let me give that assurance to my hon. Friend and, through him, to Henry’s family, as I did earlier in my statement. The family asked me a specific question when they responded yesterday. I have met that challenge and will ensure that we continue to meet that challenge, and that they get the answers they need and deserve.

For the final question, I call Tristan Osborne.

I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House today, and I extend the sympathies of my constituents to Henry Nowak’s family over this heinous and horrific crime. There is speculation online about the identities of these police officers, which is putting at risk other officers across the country due to the irresponsible actions of extreme-right groups and others, fanning the flames of tension. Will the Home Secretary confirm what we are doing to protect our officers on a daily basis under these circumstances, and will she comment on the irresponsible speculation that is happening online?

Speculation online is not just irresponsible, but wholly unacceptable. As I said earlier, we should all take a stand against that. First, it is putting at risk people who are not connected with this case. Secondly, with regard to the officers who have been connected with this case, there is a proper process that must be allowed to take its course to investigate their conduct and make the appropriate findings in the proper way. Everyone in this House should stand up for the independence of that process and give it space to conclude so that once it has concluded, we can thoroughly debate the lessons that must be learned.