Society 3 min read By Bethany Hadley
Appeal Court Lengthens Sentence of Henry Novak's Killer Vikram Digva
The Court of Appeal rejected Vikram Digva's appeal and increased his life sentence, which according to various outlets was extended by four years or to a minimum term of 25 years.
The Court of Appeal rejected Vikram Digva's application to reduce his sentence and instead increased the punishment imposed on him for the murder of Henry Novak. Digva had been found guilty of the murder and in June received a life sentence. In his appeal he sought to have the sentence softened, but the court not only refused him but also toughened the punishment.
Different outlets give different figures. The BBC reports that the minimum term has been raised to 25 years, while The Telegraph writes that the term of imprisonment has been increased by four years. The discrepancy in the data means that the final figures should be checked against the court's official ruling. The full text of the appeal ruling is not yet available in the materials at hand, so the details of the court's reasoning remain unconfirmed.
The case was investigated by Hampshire Police, and their work formed the basis of the charge for which Digva was convicted. The photographs accompanying the story were provided by the PA agency and the county police. Novak's family responded to the Court of Appeal's decision. Earlier, the victim's relatives had publicly criticised the possibility that the killer might be able to count on early release, and they regarded the attempt to reduce his sentence as a direct threat to what they believed should be the just outcome of the case.
It is also important that Digva's appeal did not lead to a softening of the sentence but ended with the opposite result. For the victim's family, this means that as a result of the appeal the prison term became longer, not shorter. For the justice system, the case demonstrates that a higher court can both refuse a review in the convicted person's favour and revise the sentence upwards if it considers the punishment insufficient.
The Court of Appeal's decision puts an end to Digva's attempt to have his conviction reviewed by a higher court. He will remain in custody for a longer period than was set in the June ruling, and the case investigated by Hampshire Police has reached an outcome significantly different from the one the convicted man had hoped for.
7
