David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
Few can have failed to have been moved by the tragic death of Henry Nowak.
Here was a young man with his life in front of him, enjoying his first term at university. He had spent the evening with football team mates and was returning home, when he encountered Vickrum Digwa, who stabbed him. One can only imagine the pain and terror the 18-year-old must have felt lying defenceless, surrounded by Digwa and his family. When the police arrived, rather than provide aid, the initial response was to handcuff him and arrest him.
As it happens, I have a son at Southampton University and, like many parents, the thought occurs – ‘that could have been my son’. One can only imagine the grief the Nowak family must feel, and be impressed by the dignity that they have shown.
Contrary to their wishes, the murder of Henry Nowak has become a political – and divisive – issue. Naturally enough, there is very close scrutiny of how the police acted on that evening and about police culture more widely. But also, as the story has progressed, it has revealed more about the character, temperament and political strategies of some of our leading politicians.
We should start with the police’s treatment of Henry Nowak. Clearly, the police officers got it badly wrong on the night, but we do have to understand the context. The officers arrived at the incident having been told that the white man was the aggressor, that he had slipped on a fence (hence being injured), that he was drunk (he wasn’t), and that no weapons had been involved (so were not expecting to find stab wounds). Usually, someone who had stabbed someone would have fled, but here was a scene of a family (Digwa and his brother and father) present, acting as if Digwa was the victim.
As the sentencing judge pointed out, the officers had been given a convincing but wholly false narrative. It was dark. The chest wound was not visible through Henry’s clothing. The visible facial injury did not appear life-threatening. Henry’s complaints of being stabbed and struggling to breathe would not necessarily have indicated how serious the situation had become and, as the judge noted, courts have experience of people who have been arrested feigning injury in the hope of release. The officers, he said, were doing their best in a very difficult situation.
Some will say this is too generous to the police, and I struggle to understand why handcuffing was necessary, but one can see why the police accepted Digwa’s lies. When we watch the bodycam footage of Henry, we know that he is an innocent university student mortally wounded. But without the benefit of hindsight and having been told what to expect, the police officers assumed Henry was not the victim but a violent youth.
Just as some are very quick to condemn the police when, for example, a black known criminal suspected of carrying a firearm is shot when it subsequently turns out that he is unarmed, we should not instinctively assume the worst about police officers and their motivations, just because it fits our preconceptions.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct will look at the facts. It is possible that the police acted as they did because of anti-racism training, but there are other explanations that – at the moment – look more plausible.
This incident may, therefore, be an imperfect catalyst for a reconsideration of how the police address matters relating to race. Even so, the way Digwa claimed that he had been racially assaulted – thinking that this would be to his advantage – sticks in the craw. After the murder, Hampshire Constabulary had sought to issue a statement claiming Henry was the aggressor and the incident was racially aggravated, despite there being no evidence to support the claim and it was dismissed by the judge, and were only prevented from doing so by the efforts of Henry’s father.
More generally, the guidance about “not treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality)” will inevitably be construed – not always wrongly – as being more worried about accusations of racism than treating everyone fairly.
The UK is not the US, and our cultural divisions are much less intense. We should keep it that way, which means resisting importing some of the nonsense – of left and right – that characterises the US debate. Critical race theory, for example, is a dangerous doctrine that justifies a type of identity politics that is deeply divisive. It became pervasive in the US, especially after the Black Lives Matter protests, and the election of Donald Trump can be seen as a reaction to it.
No one has been more prominent in opposing CRT in the UK than Kemi Badenoch. She overstates the significance of the Henry Nowak case (sorry, but this is not the equivalent of the Stephen Lawrence matter) but her wider argument about avoiding an overly racialised society in which one identity is set against another, is surely right.
She has, of course, been traduced for it.
There have been few more disgraceful political advertisements in recent years than that produced by Reform UK which quoted her as saying in 2020 “black lives matters” and in 2026 “I don’t want to hear about white lives matter”. A longer quotation in both cases would show that she was consistently arguing against identity politics and for an “all lives matter” position. Instead, Reform has sought to portray her as a black politician who puts the interests of blacks above whites. It is outrageous and those Reform politicians who have defended the graphic should be ashamed of themselves.
It is, sadly, consistent with Reform’s behaviour, particularly over the last few days. Whether out of concern over the advance of Restore Britain, or to move the conversation on from the £5m donation to Nigel Farage, the party has adopted an increasingly shrill and extreme tone. The Badenoch graphic, the call for “pure cold rage”, and the reluctance to condemn the rioting that, predictably enough, followed was behaviour of a party that – under pressure – resorts to racist rabble-rousing. No doubt there is an audience for it (sadly, it is not going to result in a collapse in their support), but it demonstrates that these are not people who should be allowed anywhere near power.
There are times when Conservative politicians, in an attempt to win back supporters lost to Reform, seek to minimise the differences between the two parties. But as last week showed, the differences – in tone, substance, and temperament – are substantial.
By making that clear, Badenoch enhanced her reputation with the majority of the public. It is a lesson she should not forget.
Reform is not a party with whom the Conservatives can or should do business.