Police tried to paint Henry Nowak as the aggressor three days after he was murdered, it has been reported. Hampshire Police attempted to release a statement that implied the 18-year-old student had assaulted his killer, Vikrum Digwa, and his brother. The force intially said, according to the Sunday Times: "It was reported two men had been assaulted by an unknown man." Digwa lied to police after knifing Henry, claiming he had been racially attacked. Officers did not believe Henry when he told them he had been stabbed.

Criticism from the Nowak family reportedly forced the police to later change their stance. The force purportedly told them that its next update, which would include a tribute to Henry from the family, would suggest that he was the initial aggressor. But that section of the statement is believed to have been changed, so that it just referred to an "altercation". It has also been reported that Hampshire Police was told off by the CPS as it risked collapsing Digwa's trial by attempting to warn the public against spreading "disinformation" after court proceedings had got underway.

It is understood that the police message described how a court case works, and reminded people that nothing could be published that could prejudice legal proceedings. It is also thought to have stated that police would answer questions after the killer's trial had concluded.

The CPS allegedly told the force that any intervention could jeopardise the case against Digwa, GB News reported.

A CPS spokesman has now said: "The CPS highlighted to the police that protecting the integrity of the ongoing trial was essential, and of the risks of referring to any aspect of the evidence before it had been heard by the court and the case had been summed up by the judge to the jury.

"However, it was made clear that whether a statement was released was ultimately a police operational decision."

A spokeswoman for Hampshire Police said: "Following the opening of the trial and the media reporting that followed, a significant amount of mis- and disinformation was circulating online.

"This included requests for information to be shared that had not been fully examined as part of the murder trial.

"The intention of the statement was to remind the public that there were ongoing legal proceedings and that the law is clear that nothing could be published which could prejudice the trial.

"The decision not to publish was taken following advice from the CPS."