Did police trawl Henry Nowak’s personal messages for evidence of racism? And, if so, was that an attempt to discredit him? Newly released material from Vikram Digwa’s murder trial, published by the Centre for Justice Policy, has prompted allegations that investigators searched through six years of Henry Nowak’s messages in an attempt to find evidence that he was racist.

The story was picked up by GB News, which doubled down on the allegation — were the police so desperate to paint Henry Nowak as a racist, to deflect from their disastrous initial response? The Nowak case is a terrible chapter in British policing, which is possibly a watershed moment in how forces approach issues of race. But while the Hampshire Police can be criticized for many things, the subsequent murder investigation is perfectly defensible. Of greater concern is that a large section of the public has lost trust in the police and now view their every operational decision with suspicion.

First of all, the police interrogating Nowak’s phone and other devices for personal messages strikes me as standard investigative practice. Digwa’s defense included claims that he had been racially abused and that the encounter had provoked his response. As such, the police were duty-bound to investigate the allegation properly and pursue reasonable lines of inquiry, including examining evidence that might support or undermine it. Failure to do so would have handed Digwa’s defense team a gift; a canny senior investigative officer would want the racism allegations either thoroughly substantiated or decisively rebutted. Had there been evidence on Henry’s phone that materially supported Digwa’s defense, and had investigators failed to pursue or disclose it when they were legally required to do so, that could have raised serious disclosure issues and potentially contributed to a miscarriage of justice.

In court, Digwa’s guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, he would still have committed murder even if he had been racially abused. But Digwa’s proven deception affected his sentencing, something his defense team would have been acutely aware of. By dismantling this pillar of his defense, the prosecution likely helped secure a longer prison sentence. It is easy for those who have never experienced the forensic scrutiny of an experienced criminal defense team to make unfounded criticisms of alleged smears.

This brings us to the second point: the online Right and populist media’s coverage of policing. There is no question that the police have dug themselves into a hole. Poor police media strategies, an addiction to critical-theory-inspired policy and problems with recruitment have all taken their toll. Meanwhile, the populist Right increasingly views all police actions through a hostile lens, reminding me of the traditional antipathy shown by the hard Left to law enforcement. This shows that an anti-police horseshoe may be forming, leaving the Home Office with not just an operational issue, but a political one too.

In an environment where the Home Office response to growing public concern about crime consists of issuing leaflets politely asking asylum seekers not to rape, or releasing dangerous criminals from prison, crime is back on the political radar. Police chiefs should take note when large swathes of the public see every operational decision as evidence of bad faith. In my professional opinion, Hampshire’s detectives did an admirable job securing Vikram Digwa’s conviction for Henry’s brutal murder. That their work is now being second-guessed says more about the force’s leadership and public credibility than it does about the quality of its investigation.