Independent report

Report 14: offensive weapons homicide review, West Midlands (accessible)

Published 22 October 2026

This template has been based on the SUSR report template for reviews in Wales. Amendments have been made to apply this form to OWHRs alone, as required in England. OWHRs carried out under the SUSR process in Wales should continue to use the SUSR template provided within the SUSR statutory guidance. Chapter 7 of the OWHR statutory guidance provides further detail on the completion of an OWHR report.

Name of Relevant Review Partners

Birmingham City Council- Community Safety Team

West Midlands Police

Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board

Case Reference Number

OWHR 8

Victim - “James” (pseudonym)

Perpetrator 1 “Malik”

Perpetrator 2 “Lamar”

Date of incident which led to the Review

August 2023

Date of death where applicable

As above.

Review’s start date (commissioned):

09/02/2024

Recommissioned February 2026

Review completion date (approved and signed off):

Publication date:

Explain any reasons for delay in completion (this should include any additional delays other than due to a criminal trial). Due to personal circumstances the person initially commissioned to undertake this review was unable to finalise it and another author was sourced. Discussion took place between the Community Safety Unit and the Home Office to determine whether or not the circumstances of this homicide should be subject to an Offensive Weapons Homicide Review.

Outline of circumstances resulting in the Review

Shortly before midnight on a date in August 2023 emergency services were alerted to an incident. A man aged 22, the victim of this homicide, had been riding an e-bike when he was hit by a car driven by the Malik. Malik was charged with murder, because it was thought that he had intent to kill the victim. The charge is unusual, more commonly people are charged with causing death by dangerous driving but the CPS determined that a charge of murder was appropriate in this instance, that the perpetrator deliberately killed the victim and that he had used his car as a weapon. The particular reasoning behind the charge is that Malik drove into the victim twice. On the first occasion the James was uninjured and he tried to ride away. Malik chased him across the carriageway and hit him with his car a second time with fatal consequences.

The jury were satisfied that Malik was guilty of murder and the judge subsequently gave him the statutory life sentence with a minimum time of 22 years imprisonment. In his sentencing remarks the judge was clear that the car that the perpetrator was driving was used as a “weapon”.

The parties did not know each other prior to the homicide. The Senior Investigating Officer told this review that the victim and perpetrator 1 came to the attention of each other some ten minutes before the homicide. Malik had three passengers in his car, one of whom was his brother.

James and a friend were both on e-bikes. It was alleged by Malik that their behaviour on the bikes wound him up, that they were doing “wheelies” and racing his car. The sentencing judge found no evidence of that. The determination in court was that for some reason Malik decided to “hunt down” the bikes in a “determined and deliberate way”. He drove “with purpose and at speed to catch the bikes again”. In interview with the police Malik responded “no comment” to questions. His defence in court was that he was responding to the poor behaviour of those on the e-bikes. As said earlier, the judge found no evidence of that. In court the press reported that the perpetrator showed “no remorse”. This review has seen no explanation for the behaviour; the guess of the Senior Investigating Officer is that the passengers in the car were “egging on” the perpetrator and that he responded to this by committing the homicide. In the absence of any other rationale this seems plausible.

Malik left the scene immediately after the homicide, making no attempt to help James. Malik, with the aid of his brother, then went on to hide the car. His brother was charged with, and found guilty of, Assisting an Offender. He was sentenced to two years and ten months imprisonment.

The judge made it clear in his sentencing remarks that the car was used as a weapon with which to commit the homicide. It was a “homicide” because it was a deliberate act and not a “spur of the moment” decision.

Notification

This review is written as part of a pilot scheme of Offensive Weapons Homicide Reviews. The relevant legislation is the Police, Crime and Sentencing Courts Act 2022. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that when a qualifying homicide takes place, local partners identify the lessons to be learnt from the death, to consider whether any action should be taken as a result, and to share the outcome. The intention is that these new reviews will improve the national and local understanding of what causes homicide and serious violence, better equipping services to prevent weapons-enabled homicides and, in so doing, save lives.

The Key Lines of Enquiry agreed with the panel following re-commission of the review are as follows:

1. To research whether Malik and/or Lamar had demonstrated any aggressive/risky behaviours which might have indicated that they would go on to be involved in the homicide.

2. To research, to a degree proportionate to this review, what is known about “Road Rage”, the causes, the extent and what might be done to decrease instances.

3. To Comment on whether there was anything that James could have done to reduce his chances of being a victim.

4. To seek the views of Malik and Lamar about the homicide and to learn from them what might have prevented it.

5. Whether there were any missed opportunities for any agency to intervene,

6. To seek to understand the motivation of Malik and Lamar and the dynamics between them; and comment on how this contributed to the homicide.

7. Whether protected characteristics and/or inequalities contributed towards the occurrence of the homicide.

An overall comment at the beginning of this review is that the usual enquiries have been made of agencies and IMRs (internal management reviews) have been completed in respect of the perpetrators and the victim. The author of this review is grateful to the agencies for their work. However, very little of that work is referenced in this review.

The explanation for that is that the author of this review could find no link between the history of the perpetrators and the victim that could have predicted the homicide.

The IMR with regard to James is full and there was a significant amount of contact with agencies. However, in the view of the author, this has nothing to do with him as a victim or the circumstances of his death. He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Given this, it would be inappropriate to provide details of his family and his past in this review. To do so would be to “victim-blame”. Given the outcome of the court case, and the words of the judge when sentencing, the victim of this offence was blameless.

Less information has been provided to this review about Malik. He did have some agency contact, but he had no convictions, or indeed a record of driving offences. He had no known history of violence. There is nothing from the information supplied to this review to suggest that Malik would commit the homicide. As with the victim, as the background information supplied is not relevant to the homicide, it is not included in this review.

Lamar is the brother of Malik. His role in the homicide was to support his brother by hiding the car. As with his brother, Lamar has no convictions and there is no suggestion from his history that he might have gone on to commit his part in the homicide. Again, background information about Lamar is not included in this review because it does not help to understand his role in the offence.

Equality and Diversity

James (victim)

Age: 22 at the time of death

Disability: none known

Gender reassignment: not applicable

Marriage and civil partnership: unknown

Pregnancy and maternity: not applicable

Race: White British

Sex: Male

Sexual orientation: data missing

Socio-economic disadvantage: The victim does have a background of social disadvantage. He was from a large, close, family. The main issue on records being that his parents were unable to safeguard him and his siblings at times during his childhood.

Malik (perpetrator 1)

Age: 19 at the time of the homicide

Disability:

Gender reassignment: not applicable

Marriage and civil partnership: not applicable

Pregnancy and maternity: not applicable

Race: unclear. Records describe him variously as “Black-African” and “Pakistani”

Religion or belief: not recorded

Sex: male

Sexual orientation: data missing

Socio-economic disadvantage: nothing known

Lamar (perpetrator 2)

Age: 20 at the time of the homicide

Disability: none recorded

Gender reassignment: not applicable

Marriage and civil partnership: not applicable

Pregnancy and maternity: not applicable

Race: Black-African

Religion or belief: not recorded

Sex: male

Sexual orientation: data missing

Socio-economic disadvantage: nothing known

Involvement of family/next of kin and other relevant persons

Through the Family Liaison Officer, the family of the victim were offered an opportunity to be involved in this review, but declined. In a Victim Impact Statement reported in the press after sentencing, the victim’s sister said that her brother had five siblings and that he was, “a loved son, brother, uncle and friend to many”. He should have been, “living his life to the max, enjoying every day, being carefree, having a laugh and making memories”. “But all this was taken away from him in the worst possible way. I don’t think that any of us will ever get over that we couldn’t say goodbye”. “We were called to the roadside where his lifeless body lay. We had to stand by and watch the emergency services do all that they could to try to save his life”. “Every day is a struggle; our lives have been shattered into pieces”. “He was the spark of our family. He had brilliant banter and would always just make us laugh. He was the fun and bubbly one”.

Contact with the Perpetrator’s Family

At the time of drafting this review a video meeting with Jamal was sought but was unable to be arranged. The police have advised that now that Lamar is released that he does not wish to have contact with anyone regarding this review.

Agency Timeline

The IMRs supplied to this review were full and thorough. They have been read carefully by the review panel and by the author of this review. Malik had no convictions prior to the homicide.

There is nothing in the IMRs concerning Malik to suggest that he might have gone on to commit this homicide. Often from someone’s history one can see concerning behaviour that does, or might, escalate and sometimes missed opportunities can be divined from this. In this case there are no such missed opportunities. For this reason, no more is said in this review about agency contacts with the Malik.

The situation with regard to James is that nothing could have predicted that he would die in such unusual circumstances. With hindsight he could potentially have stopped and got off his bike earlier, but it is fair to say that he would have had no idea that Jamal would go on to kill him. There is nothing in the IMRs that would help with an analysis of this. For this reason, no more is said in this review about agency contacts with the victim.

Practice and organisational learning

1. Although an examination of the causes and extent of “Road Rage” was agreed in the terms of reference for this review, it was subsequently decided that the circumstances leading to this review were substantially different to “Road Rage” as it is commonly understood. “Road Rage” is aggressive or angry driving usually resulting from an incident. Whilst no one except him knows what was going on in the Malik’s mind at the time of the homicide, he has not claimed that he was angry, nor have witnesses said that he was. This separates out the incident in this review from “Road Rage” and elevates it, via the intent, to murder. For this reason, “Road Rage” is not further discussed.

2. The remaining terms of reference have been addressed in the body of the text, apart from the question of whether protected characteristics or inequalities contributed to this homicide. The author of this review has seen no evidence or suggestion they might have done.

Improving Systems and Practice (National, Regional and Local)

Homicide by use of a car as a weapon is extremely unusual. An internet search has identified only five such cases, including this one, in the last four years. There were no indications that James might commit this homicide and no identified missed opportunities of what he might do. Given this, there is no learning from this review that might assist in reducing such future incidences.

Dissemination

List of recipients who will receive copies of the Review Report (in line with guidance and due to the recommendations of this Report): Please copy and paste the appropriate number of instances.

Date circulated to relevant policy leads:

Organisation	Yes	No	Reason
Single Competent Authority
NHS Birmingham and Solihull Trust/ Sandwell and Birmingham NHS Trust
Change Grow Live
Birmingham City Housing/ Sustain Housing

OWHR process

The relevant Home Office guidance was used to complete this review.

Final confidence check

This Report has been checked to ensure that the OWHR process has been followed correctly and the Report completed as set out in the statutory guidance.

I can confirm that this Report section is at a standard ready for publication.

Once completed this report needs to be sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Office. Tick to confirm this has been completed.

Statements of Independence

Statement of Independence by Chair:

Please read and sign the following statement. Consider the section on independence in the OWHR Statutory Guidance before completing.

Statement of independence from the case

I make the following statement that prior to my involvement with this review:

• I have not been directly involved in the case or any management or oversight of the case.
• I have the appropriate recognised knowledge, experience and training to undertake the review. Therefore, I have met the criteria of an Independent Chair.
• The review was conducted appropriately and was rigorous in its analysis and evaluation of the issues as set out in the Terms of Reference. I recognise that the purpose of this is to identify learning from the case, not to attribute blame to practitioners or agencies.
• I have read and understood the equality and diversity considerations and will apply accordingly.

Please set out below how you meet paragraphs 3.14 – 3.19 of the OWHR guidance

The Independent Chair of this review has no current connection with any agency in the West Midlands. His only relevant connection is that he was Chair of the Walsall Safeguarding Adult and Children Board between 2015 and 2018. He is an Independent Social Worker and has undertaken the relevant Home Office approved training for Chairing and authoring Offensive Weapons Homicide Reviews. The review was conducted according to the appropriate guidelines and addressed the agreed terms of reference. Equality and diversity considerations have been addressed appropriately.

Signature: Alan Critchley

Name: Alan Critchley

Date: 03/06/2026

To be completed by the Home Office

Please tick here to confirm that the Chair was appointed from the Independent Chairs List held by the Home Office:

If the Chair is not a member of the Independent Chairs List, then please give detail to confirm how the alternative Chair fully meets the Competencies set out in the OWHR guidance.