Nowak case: Reports show police tried to INTERVENE in the trial and present Henry as the AGGRESSOR

And this news broke, ladies and gentlemen, from the Sunday Times in the last hour or so, and I'm still reeling from it.Just when you think that this story cannot get any more shocking, well, here we are.Breaking tonight, police at the centre of the Henry Novak scandal reportedly tried to intervene during his killer's murder trial over fears about what people were saying online.According to the Sunday Times, the Hampshire police wanted to issue a public statement during the trial to combat what they called misinformation surrounding the case.But prosecutors warned the force that doing so could risk jeopardising the integrity of the trial itself.And tonight the revelations go even further and I would suggest even darker.

The paper claims officers wanted to portray Henry Novak as the aggressor.in official statements released after his death despite having evidence proving this was not the case before changing course following what I would say is justified outrage from his grieving family.Police doubting he'd ever been stabbed and now claims the force wanted to intervene in the middle of a murder trial while public anger exploded across Britain and America.No wonder trust in Britain's institutions is collapsing.And I must say, what we are learning tonight now draws into even more further question whether or not we will see the type of reform that is needed across the police forces of the United Kingdom or whether we will get yet more lack, yet more lack of transparency and more pushback in an attempt to cover their own backside.Of course joining me is my panel, London political commentators Benedict Spence and Matthew Stadlin and in Washington, Chair of the Republicans Overseas UK, Greg Swenson and of course Hilary Fordwich.

Thank you one and all.Benedict, I'll start with you.We have now been talking about this story for weeks.I still find it incredibly difficult to talk about.I find it a combination of infuriating and saddening.What do you

make of what you've read in the Times this evening?

he has the right to a fair trial.The police wading in, sort of, because that's what they think they ought to do, without necessarily thinking these things through, is a very dangerous thing both for those on trial as well as disrespectful to the victims.And I think it's quite right that the Crown Prosecution Service said to them, what on earth do you think you're doing?This is unacceptable.But, you know, to also try and attempt to frame this with that initial statement of Henry Novak of being the aggressor, again, That's not actually for the police to say.They can by all means try and, you know, with the Crown Prosecution Service, make a case.

But that's actually ultimately for a jury to decide what were the events that happened and therefore where the fault lies.And again, it adds some sort of element, almost as if there were sort of a balancing act going on.It doesn't actually matter really what had happened, whether Henry Novak was the aggressor.If he wasn't, as you said, there was plenty of evidence to suggest that there wasn't, that he wasn't that.The point is we were talking about a man on trial for murder.And ultimately, whatever Henry Novak may or may not have said, that does not in any way exonerate or lessen the fact that Vikram Digwa murdered him and everything else that went on around that.

of influencing it.trial mid -proceedings, this is extraordinary that the police would then intend to do that very same thing.

Just briefly on what Benedict said, I don't think there's any suggestion that Henry Novak said anything wrong.to his killer.I think we should be really clear about that.In terms of disrupting a trial, the integrity of trials in this country, the integrity of justice is absolutely critical.And you say, Will, that we've been talking about this for weeks.We haven't actually.

We've been talking about it for about a week since the...The ABN News has been talking about it for weeks.Well, we should only have been talking about it for a week since the sentence was passed down on the killer.And by the way, there's a whole conversation to be had as to whether that sentence should have been a harder sentence.There were online trolls criticising the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, for not coming out sooner.But in fact, Starmer came out after the sentencing, very quickly after the sentencing and made clear that there were questions that needed answers.

It can prejudice proceedings.

That's what I'm interested in.I've already answered that.I've said, and the Keir Starmer point is part of this, that the integrity of trials and the integrity of justice in this country are absolutely critical.And it was clearly made abundantly clear to the police force, although I believe it was ultimately up to them whether they did intervene or not, by the Crown Prosecution Service that it would not be helpful to the trial, to the conduct of the trial, and to achieving justice.My point about Starmer is that the accusations levelled at him, I don't know whether by you or not Will, that he should have intervened more quickly here are ridiculous and dangerous because actually what he did was wait for the sentencing and that is correct.

We can get to that.

I can't by the way speak for the police force, the police force will have to speak for themselves.I'll be trying to get my head around some of this story in the Sunday Times.Clearly there are questions to answer.

Let's give other people a go.Hilary, what are your reflections on what we've heard from the Sunday Times this evening?

Well, I think from what we've heard from the Sunday Times, absolutely ghastly, and all it does is reinforce actually the worst sentiments that we've seen, the worst that we've seen over this, ever since the that footage was released.I think it just confirms that.But also, if I could just make mention, when we were talking about Henry Nowak, I will say one thing.Number one, his family made sure to put in their statement that he was very inclusive.He actually was with his football teammates celebrating the end of term, which is a diverse team.There is nothing in his history, nothing in his character that anybody said ever from anywhere that would indicate he would have any racial, made a racial slur, had any racial prejudices.

So I think that's number one.And then also, with regard to this case.The issue is the contrast between his reaction to this incident with Henry versus George Floyd, when he went down on the knee and that was the other side of the world, it wasn't somebody that was English, it wasn't in the British Isles.And the outrage that happened from that and his comments there, it's the contrast, I think, that has set this off like a tinderbox in England.It's like the last straw.

Greg on the second revelation that we've heard from the Sunday Times that three days after the death of Henry Novak the police were planning on releasing a public statement that would suggest still that Henry Novak was the aggressor in the altercation that cost him his life.By that stage we had I would suggest incontrovertible evidence that that was not the case and it was only the family's pleas that stopped this statement from going out.What I would suggest is that this raises further questions as to whether or not we will actually get transparency from the police, or whether or not this will just lead to more and more covering up of what really happened here.How do you reflect on it?

Yeah, look, just when we thought this couldn't get any worse, and it really has.And so what we've seen, really, is a combination of two really horrendous, woke policies that damaging to both the United States and the United Kingdom.And one is, of course, the institutionalization of D .I.and diversity training and basically racism by the police in their training manuals.And then the second one is this excuse that governments used.

We did it here in the United States during the Biden years when governments use misinformation or disinformation as an excuse to either censor or to pollute, in this case, pollute a case with with false And so, you know, the good news is it can be fixed.And we've done it here in the United States.But for four years, we had, you know, we had a lot of that disinformation excuse.We had a Department of Homeland Security's misinformation department, which is basically code for censorship.And of course,we had the institutionalization as well of DEI.

And President Biden called it the all of government effort on equity.And so it can be fixed.And it has been here.And I hope we can do the same in the UK.

The concern with me for the disinformation revelation this evening is that if the police are going to say that there is disinformation swirling around, You have to be able to trust them.And most certainly, they can't be releasing disinformation themselves.And there is the perception from this reporting, and we'll need to understand it further, but there is a very clear perception that if they were three days after the event to suggest that he was still the aggressor, that would have been an example of disinformation itself.So that's something which we still need to explore more.But I'm going to explore that more now with our first guest for the evening, political editor at The Independent, David Maddox.David, we'll start with the Sunday Times reporting that you are no doubt across your reflections on what you've read.

I think it's pretty shocking stuff.I mean, I can't help but get out of my mind that it's a different police force, admittedly, but it's a police force that is trying to prevent all the Mandelson papers from coming out because they claim that it might influence a trial.And here we have an example of a police force trying to make an intervention which would have undoubtedly influenced a trial and possibly got a murderer off.Scott Free, you know, given what their intentions were in this shocking case.I mean, it's a classic case, I'm afraid, of an institution trying to cover its backside because it knew that trouble's coming down the road.I mean, this isn't about disinformation.

This is about them being poor from the very start.I disagree with Greg in the sense that, you know, he kind of frames it as a woke problem.This is just bad practice from peoplestart.You know, they allowed this young man to die without any effort to save his life, in fact, potentially, you know, hastening his death.And they were clearly trying to cover themselves.

But, you know, I mean, there's been a lot of questions about the chief constable, Alexis Boone.Surely his position's got to be under question.tonight.The other person, you know, Kemi Badenoch has been superb on this issue and she's won a lot of plaudits for what she's said and the measured way she's approached it.But the Police and Crime Commissioner in Hampshire is one of the kind of rising stars of the Conservative Party, Donna Jones.She was actually nominated for the Hampshire Mayor position.

She's still there, candidate for that.And yet, you know, she's She's a police and crime commissioner of Hampshire Police.What on earth was she doing?And, you know, there's going to be quite serious questions about the Conservative Party, you know, continuing with Helms, their mayoral candidate.

Yeah, David, to your first point, do you think that the people of this country can still trust their police forces?

Well, I think, on the whole, they can.I mean, there's always bad practice in every institution.There's always bad individuals.There's always mistakes.I think the general, you know, our police are overwhelmed.I mean, we see this with the shoplifting.

It's a different issue.But, you know, the police are unable to properly tackle shoplifting.And that's because so much money is sent elsewhere.We spend a fortune on welfare, but we spend a minimum on policing, for example.And that's where it certainly needs more resources.It needs more support.

And that's where the issue is.

Yeah.Well, that's unfortunately all we have time for now, David.Thank you very much for staying up this evening.A spokesman for the Independent Office for Police Conduct has said,