Police watchdog to reinvestigate fatal Birmingham BMW crash as officer ‘not trained in pursuit’

The police watchdog is reinvestigating a fatal BMW crash in Handsworth after a police officer involved in the incident ‘was not trained or authorised’ to carry out a pursuit. Muhammad Qasim, 29, was inside a BMW which smashed into a tree in Island Road at around 2.15am on Monday, October 2, last year.

A second man was seriously injured in the crash. The BMW was spotted by officers heading out of the city, with the crash taking place as a police officer turned their vehicle around in Church Lane.

West Midlands Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) after the crash. An initial investigation, which ended in May, found "no indication any officer may have breached the standards of professional behaviour or that they had a case to answer for misconduct".

READ MORE: Tributes to 'Dad' left at scene of horror BMW crash

But, following representations made by Mr Qasim’s family, the IOPC has decided to reinvestigate the crash. A spokesperson for the police watchdog said: “The police driver was not trained or authorised to carry out a pursuit.

“After examining the evidence, we concluded our original investigation had not fully analysed the relevant police guidance around the definition of a police pursuit or considered whether it constituted a spontaneous pursuit. The reinvestigation will explore this, considering new information in a witness account, which became available after our investigation had concluded. We will also examine the manner in which the police car was driven.”

IOPC regional director, Derrick Campbell, said: “A matter can only be reinvestigated by the IOPC if there are compelling reasons. In this case, after careful assessment we assessed a reinvestigation is warranted and is necessary in the public interest. The coroner and those closely impacted by our decision, including Mr Qasim’s family and the officers involved, have been notified.”

The IOPC said compelling reasons for reinvestigation were that the original investigation may have been ‘materially flawed’ in a manner which had an impact on subsequent decisions on outcomes, and/or that there was significant new information’ that required further investigation.

It said there must be a real possibility the new information, had it been previously available, would have led wholly or partly to different decisions on the outcomes of its investigation.