Independent report

Report 15: offensive weapons homicide review, West Midlands (accessible)

Published 22 October 2026

Name of Relevant Review Partners

Birmingham City Council- Community Safety Team

West Midlands Police

NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board

Case Reference Number

OWHR005

Pseudonym 1

Please copy and paste the appropriate number of pseudonyms.

Victim 1

Jamal

Perpetrator 1

Gurdeep

Date of incident which led to the Review

June 2023

Date of death where applicable

June 2023

Review’s start date (commissioned)

01/08/2024

Review completion date (approved and signed off)

01/04/2026

Publication date: TBC

Explain any reasons for delay in completion (this should include any additional delays other than due to a criminal trial).

The review of OWHR005 has experienced significant delays primarily due to the time taken to obtain relevant information from agencies outside of Birmingham. This external dependency has impacted the overall timeline for completing the report.

The decision regarding this OWHR was made by all Relevant Review Partners (RRPs) at the Steering Group meeting on August 2023, where it was agreed that Birmingham would act as the lead agency responsible for issuing notifications on OWHR decisions. Slough Children’s Trust were included as they had significant background information on the perpetrator.

Additionally, the commissioning of the review was delayed because limited to no information was returned during the initial scoping process for both the victim and the alleged perpetrator, making it difficult for the Steering Group to reach a decision on the report.

The case was considered at Steering Group meetings in July and August 2023. The Birmingham Steering Group requested additional time to decide on OWHR005 because both the victim and alleged perpetrator reside outside the West Midlands area. Further consideration occurred at the meeting on April 2024, where it was noted that the perpetrator had previous involvement in violent criminal offences prior to the murder.

OWHR Criteria

The guidance states a review must be conducted if:

• The victim is over 18 (Jamal was 20 at the time of death).
• The circumstances indicate an offensive weapon was used (a knife in this case).
• One or more review partners hold relevant information about the victim or perpetrator (information is held by police and other agencies).

Based on these criteria, the Steering Group agreed that OWHR005 meets the threshold for a review.

Key Lines of Enquiry

• To undertake a review into the death by stabbing of Jamal using the methodology of an Offensive Weapons Homicide Review (Police, Crimes, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022).
• The review to be complete, to the satisfaction of the local review partners, by end May 2025. Changes to timescale to be agreed with the statutory partners.
• To provide recommendations for improving systems and practice as a result of learning from the death of Jamal.
• To set out, and comment on, any relevant protected characteristics.
• Assess and analyse the role of any alcohol and drug use in the homicide.
• To provide comment and reflection on the caution and NFA’s in relation to GB’s offending history. Given the known history could an escalation in violence have been anticipated?
• Gurdeep’s family context and the relevance of any violence, drug use, knife crime that led to the homicide.
• What is known of the relationship between Gurdeep and Jamal? Why was Gurdeep at the party and could the violence have been anticipated?
• The timeline of the review will be from Gurdeep’s youth caution in 2019 through to the homicide. NB- to concentrate on significant, reportable incidents only.
• To set out the circumstances of the death of Jamal (what happened)
• Provide context and understanding of the death of Jamal (why it happened)
• Set out learning from the death of Jamal, being clear to whom the learning is applicable.

Outline of circumstances resulting in the Review

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 information supplied to this review has been limited and no IMRs (Internal Management Reviews) have been completed by agencies.

Full enquires were undertaken during the scoping period for this review but there was insufficient information available to warrant the commissioning of IMRs.

The information provided to this review in respect of Gurdeep is below. The event that led to the death of Jamal appeared to have no history or build-up in that they did not know each other.

The Victim- Jamal

The victim had no convictions. On the day that he lost his life there is no suggestion from anyone that he was doing anything other than his best to bring a party, that had got out of hand, to a conclusion. This review has been provided with a copy of the Victim Impact Statement and the author has spoken to Jamal’s aunt by telephone. His mother has, understandably, been too distressed to take part in this review.

All the information provided to this review in respect of Jamal has been positive. There is more in this review about the perpetrator, that is because the learning is from the perpetrator. If this review feels unbalanced, that there is too little about the victim and too much about the perpetrator it is because there is learning to be gained to support and protect other blameless young people such as Jamal.

The Perpetrator- Gurdeep

The perpetrator was known to agencies, this is addressed in the review. The author, accompanied by a member of staff from the Birmingham Community Safety panel was able to interview the perpetrator via video with Swinfen Hall Prison.

The review group is wider than the immediate agencies involved. This provides proper scrutiny to the process and the review. The author of this review is a Social Worker with experience of writing Safeguarding Adult Reviews and Domestic Homicide Reviews.

Note: This review would have benefitted greatly from further information. In particular, the Probation and Psychiatric reports submitted to the sentencing court. Also, the Youth Justice records in respect of the perpetrator and the effectiveness of the interventions provided. Completing this report was not delayed in the hope of receiving these reports. The author considered that, as there was learning to be gained, that the review should be completed in a timely and proportionate way, albeit without all the available information.

Equality and Diversity

Jamal

Age: 20

Disability: no known or recorded disability

Gender reassignment: not applicable

Marriage and civil partnership: data missing

Pregnancy and maternity: not applicable

Race: Black-African

Religion or belief: Christian

Sex: male

Sexual orientation: unknown

Socio-economic disadvantage: no relevant information

Gurdeep

Age: at the time of the homicide - 18

Disability: none known or recorded

Gender reassignment: not applicable

Marriage and civil partnership: data missing

Pregnancy and maternity: not applicable

Race: Asian Indian

Religion or belief: not recorded

Sex: male

Sexual orientation: unknown

Socio-economic disadvantage: no known factors

Involvement of family/next of kin and other relevant persons

Jamal’s mother was offered the opportunity of contributing to this review via the Police Family Liaison Officer. She was too distressed to take part, but the author of this review spoke to Jamal’s aunt. Information from her is contained below. A comment from the family that was released to the media following the trial was as follows. The pseudonym inserted is the one used by this review:

“Jamal will be remembered for his joyous smile that always lit up the rooms he entered. His kind, caring and compassionate nature was shown through his warm love for his family and friends. Jamal was happiness. His well-mannered aura always made you feel at ease whenever you were around him. Farewell beautiful Jamal your stars go down to shine upon some further shore and you will be loved forever more”.

Contact with the Alleged Perpetrator’s Family

Gurdeep was interviewed in prison. The information from this interview is below. His family have not been contacted.

Family History and/or Contextual Information

Gurdeep

Gurdeep was born December 2004 and was aged 18 at the time of Jamal’s murder. In his sentencing remarks the judge noted that Gurdeep had not reached full maturity and the sentence was reduced in accordance with this.

The first mention of Gurdeep in agency records supplied to this review was in 2013 when he was recorded as being a child, then aged 9, in a domestic abuse incident when his father made threats to burn down the house during a verbal altercation with his mother.

Gurdeep has two younger siblings, G (M) and G (F). Gurdeep’s brother has a significant history with Thames Valley Police having been charged with knife-point robbery with two other males. The same two males were later convicted for knife related homicides. Gurdeep himself is an associate of two males who were subject to CSPR (Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews) following knife crime offences. What is clear from Gurdeep’s history and those he associated with that knives were a significant part of his later background.

The first such recorded instance of Gurdeep having a weapon was in March 2019 when he and his brother were referred to Slough Children’s Services. Gurdeep was aged 14 at the time, for threatening a young boy and his family with a machete. The outcome of this referral was to provide early help. Because the boys’ mother declined the offer of early help the referral was closed. An observation from this review is that the possession and potential use of a machete is serious and significant. In spite of Gurdeep’s mother declining help, a way might have been found to work with Gurdeep. This may have meant the use of the Criminal Justice System.

In November of the same year, when Gurdeep was aged 15, he was found in possession of a knife blade/sharp pointed article in a public place. For this he was given a conditional caution and referred to the Youth Offending Team to complete five weapons awareness sessions and two victim awareness sessions. This was completed and Gurdeep was said to engage well. Shortly before the sessions Gurdeep had been excluded from school for threatening to hit a female pupil and then hitting a male pupil. Following these incidents Gurdeep was receiving support from the school, the Youth Offending Team and Early Help.

Again, in November 2019 Gurdeep was found to be in possession of a large kitchen knife whilst he was living with his father, his parents by now having separated and providing shared care for the three children. His father reported the missing knife to the police as well as a suspicion that Gurdeep was smoking cannabis. He also had money that neither parent had given him. The outcome from this was for a Child and Family Assessment to be prepared.

In September 2020 a Child in Need meeting was held in relation to all three children, their emotional needs and the potential that they were “beyond parental control”.

Gurdeep was then made subject to a further Youth Conditional Caution in December 2020 and he was provided with twenty weeks of input to address his escalating offending behaviour. The strategy was to reduce his motivation to offend.

In February 2021, Gurdeep was stabbed in the arm receiving significant physical injuries. He said that he didn’t know his attacker. The police noted that he was in a local hotspot known for gangs and drug taking. At this incident a friend of Gurdeep’s was found to have a knife in his possession. This friend later went on to be convicted of a knife related homicide. Gurdeep himself was found to have a knife in his possession when he was taken to hospital and a quantity of cannabis.

This was handed at the hospital to Gurdeep’s father and the police were notified later that day. A search of Gurdeep’s house found “deal bags”, £730 in cash and two phones. The items were found in the bedroom shared by the brothers and as the items couldn’t be definitely linked to either individual no further police action was taken.

In the following month the three siblings, all in their teens, were made subject to Child Protection Plans, the concerns were that both brothers were involved in gang activities, that both brothers were carrying knives and that Gurdeep had recently been stabbed. Gurdeep had also been in possession of cannabis with intent to supply and that he had £730 in his possession. There was also concerns about reprisals and that the siblings could be in danger. This is indicative of County Lines activity; Gurdeep was 16 by this time.

The plan was reviewed in May 2021 and was to continue with the same risks identified. The plan was however ended in November 2021 with no further risks identified and Children’s Services closed the case in April 2022 (Gurdeep was 18 in any event).

In interview he said he would need to go back to age 13 to change his involvement in crime. At that age he said that he knew that his family loved and supported him. His aim was to receive equal recognition from his peers. In his words, “he wanted to be noticed”. With hindsight, and insight, he said that he was groomed by those older than him.

Gurdeep came across as being insightful and reflective. He doesn’t want to be in prison and blames no one but himself. He accepts that during his teenage years it would have taken significant steps to have changed what he called his “mindset”, his attitudes and behaviours. A hero for him now is the actor Idris Elba who is campaigning against knife crime. Gurdeep commented that if he had been aware of someone like Idris Elba in his early teenage years that they might have been able to influence him. However, he observed, probably with some accuracy, that during his teenage years Gurdeep, and others like him, would not have listened to anyone other than their friends and themselves.

Gurdeep had been given some input through Youth Justice into his offending behaviour with knives. His comment on this was that he liked the Youth Justice worker but felt that they were “box-ticking”, i.e. they were progressing through the information that they needed to give him without ensuring that he engaged with it in a way that might influence his behaviour. A recommendation is made that the sort of input received by Gurdeep is evaluated for effectiveness.

Agency Timeline

This section considers the Individual Management Reviews (IMRs) and Information.

Formal IMRs were not provided to this review. All information received is referred to in the text.

Practice and organisational learning

• The first that Jamal’s family heard of his death was from the mother of one of his friends who had read about it on social media. His family were not formally told of his death until the afternoon after the day of his death, some 36 hours later. Having read about the incident involving Jamal on social media they were very worried but were hoping that the reports were inaccurate. Full communication of Jamal’s death should have been much quicker and police forces need to agree a means of communicating so that a family is informed reliably and at the first possible opportunity.
• The perpetrator had been subject to two conditional cautions, both for knife crime. The first was of five weeks duration and the second for twenty weeks. The courses took place in 2019 and 2021 and were sufficiently close to the time of this offence to raise concern as to how effective they were. The content of such courses to be reviewed for effectiveness. See research from the Youth Endowment Fund 1
• Whilst it is disputed, it is likely that the perpetrator arrived at the party with the knife. The knife was of 22cms in length. Anyone seeing someone carrying a knife in such situations should be encouraged via an education and awareness programme to call the police.
• Feedback from the perpetrator in this case is that the age for intervention that might have made a difference for him was 13. The Ben Kinsella Trust recommends slightly younger engagement, at ages 10/11, the point of transition from primary to secondary school. All young people should receive input into the reality of knife crime, how it might affect them and impact on them, whether they are a perpetrator or victim. The effectiveness of this input to be evaluated with young people themselves. 2
• The stabbing took place at a party in a property rented via Airbnb. In their conditions Airbnb do not allow “hosts” to let the property for “disruptive gatherings” or “open invite gatherings”. In fact, this event let to other contraventions such as “excessive noise” and “excessive visitors”. The circumstances of the death of Jamal provide learning for Airbnb and other letting organisations about the dangers of what can happen in rented properties. Airbnb are asked to consider how they can make their conditions enforceable. The findings from this review should be sent to Airbnb. They are asked to comment on this particular finding.

Improving Systems and Practice (National, Regional and Local)

Recommendation 1: West Midlands Police - Timely Family

Notification Police forces should establish and agree on a robust communication protocol to ensure families are informed of a death by homicide reliably and at the earliest possible opportunity. In this case, Jamal’s family first learned of his death via social media and were not formally notified until 36 hours later, which caused unnecessary distress. (Agreed Recommendation)

Recommendation 2: Review Effectiveness of Knife Crime Interventions - The Home Office to commission evaluation of knife crime course and interventions to evaluate effectiveness

Note: The Home Office to lead on this recommendation, it is also relevant to the Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice as it relates to the conditional caution process.

In addition agencies responsible for delivering conditional caution courses for knife crime should review the content and effectiveness of these interventions. The perpetrator had completed two such courses prior to the offence, raising concerns about their impact. Reference research from the Youth Endowment Fund to inform improvements. (Recommendation agreed, allocate to Home Office)

Recommendation 3: Public Awareness and Reporting - The Department of Education to recommend how this is achieved as a part of the outcome of this pilot scheme

Develop and implement education and awareness programmes encouraging the public to report individuals seen carrying knives. In this case, the perpetrator likely arrived at the party with a 22cm knife, highlighting the need for proactive community reporting. (Recommendation Agreed, Allocate to CSP- Birmingham)

Recommendation 4: Early Intervention on Knife Crime Education - The Department of Education

Introduce knife crime education at the point of transition from primary to secondary school (ages 10–11), as recommended by the Ben Kinsella Trust. Feedback from the perpetrator suggests earlier intervention could have made a difference. Effectiveness should be evaluated with input from young people. (Recommendation agreed)

Recommendation 5: Letting Provider Compliance. Birmingham Community Safety Team, to link with their Licencing Department

Airbnb and similar property rental platforms should review how they enforce conditions prohibiting disruptive or open-invite gatherings. This incident occurred at a rented property where multiple conditions were breached, demonstrating the need for stronger compliance measures.

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: TBC

Organisation	Yes	No	Reason
Single Competent Authority	☐	☒	N/A
West Midlands Police	☒	☐
NHS Birmingham and Solihull Trust/ Sandwell and Birmingham NHS Trust	☒	☐
Change Grow Live	☐	☒	N/A
Birmingham City Housing/ Sustain Housing	☐	☒	N/A

OWHR process

The relevant, agreed, 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.

Statement of Independence by Chair

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

Chair 1

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: 01/01/2026

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.

Scope/Terms of Reference

To be included in line with section 2 of the OWHR statutory guidance.

Key Lines of Enquiry

• To undertake a review into the death by stabbing of AD using the methodology of an Offensive Weapons Homicide Review (Police, Crimes, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022).
• The review to be complete, to the satisfaction of the local review partners, by end May 2025. Changes to timescale to be agreed with the statutory partners.
• To provide recommendations for improving systems and practice as a result of learning from the death of Jamal.
• To set out, and comment on, any relevant protected characteristics
• Assess and analyse the role of any alcohol and drug use in the homicide
• To provide comment and reflection on the caution and NFA’s in relation to Gurdeep’s offending history. Given the known history could an escalation in violence have been anticipated?
• Gurdeep’s family context and the relevance of any violence, drug use, knife crime that led to the homicide.
• What is known of the relationship between Gurdeep and Jamal? Why was Gurdeep at the party and could the violence have been anticipated?
• The timeline of the review will be from Gurdeep’s youth caution in 2019 through to the homicide. NB- to concentrate on significant, reportable incidents only.
• To set out the circumstances of the death of Jamal (what happened)
• Provide context and understanding of the death of Jamal(why it happened)
• Set out learning from the death of Jamal, being clear to whom the learning is applicable.