Birmingham Civil and Family Justice Centre
The Priory Courts, 33 Bull Street
Birmingham B4 6DS
Before:
HHJ Emma Kelly sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Between :
Birmingham City Council | Claimant |
- and – | |
(8) Persons Unknown who participate or intend to participate in street-cruises in Birmingham, as car drivers, motorcycle riders, passengers and/or spectators (9) Persons Unknown who, or who intend to, organise, promote or publicise street cruises in Birmingham (10) Persons Unknown who participate or intend to participate in street cruises in Birmingham as car drivers, motorcycle riders or passengers in motor cars or on motorcycles And 35 Named Defendants Listed At Schedule 1 | Defendants |
Ms Charlotte Crocombe (instructed by Birmingham City Council Legal Services) for the Claimant.
The First Defendant attended in person. The other Defendants did not attend and were not represented.
Hearing date: 26 February 2026.
Judgment handed down remotely at 4pm on 27 February 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email and by release to the National Archives.
APPROVED JUDGMENT
HHJ Emma Kelly:
Introduction
This is the second annual review of a quasi-final injunction and power of arrest granted to Birmingham City Council (“the Claimant”). The claim was listed alongside the review of a similar injunction granted to four neighbouring local authorities (Wolverhampton City Council, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council) under claim number KB-2022-BHM-000188 (“the Black Country claim”). The claims are not however consolidated. A separate judgment is handed down in respect of the review hearing of the Black Country claim as different issues arise: [2026] EWHC 443 (KB).
The Claimant seeks the continuation of the substance of the existing injunction and power of arrest.
The Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Defendants are categories of ‘Persons Unknown’ (“the Persons Unknown Defendants”). The remaining Defendants are named individuals. Some were included as parties from the inception of the claim, others were added as parties following findings of contempt on breach of the interim or quasi-final version of the injunction.
The First Defendant, Mr Nagmadin, attended the review hearing and offered an undertaking, which was accepted by the Claimant and Court. The quasi-final injunction and power of arrest have been discharged against him and the claim against him is adjourned generally with liberty to restore. The review hearing does not therefore concern him. None of the other Defendants attended or were represented at the review hearing.
Background
The claim arose from car cruising or street cruising activity that was occurring on the public highways or other areas to which the public had access within the Claimant’s local authority area. For those not familiar with the concept of car cruising, it typically involves a congregation of motor vehicles (including motorcycles) on the public highway, or in another place to which the public have access. The drivers or riders of the vehicles drive at excessive speeds or otherwise dangerously, often racing, driving in convoy, performing stunts, and obstructing the public highway or private property. The gatherings often attract crowds of spectators.
On 22 December 2022, Hill J granted an urgent interim injunction and power of arrest. The interim orders were varied on a number of occasions prior to the final hearing.
On 27 February 2024, Julian Knowles J granted a quasi-final injunction (“the Injunction”) and power of arrest (“the Power of Arrest”). The Power of Arrest was attached to one limb only of the Injunction. By paragraph 5, Injunction and Power of Arrest were to “remain in force until 23.59 on 27 February 2027 unless varied or discharged by further Order of the Court”. The Injunction provided for annual review hearings.
The first annual review of the quasi-final injunction and power of arrest took place before Ritchie J on 26 February 2025: [2025] EWHC 1102 (KB). The single judgment deals with both the review hearing in this claim and the Black Country claim. The hearing gave rise to a slightly modified form of injunction, dated 3 March 2025, amended pursuant to the slip rule on 4 March 2025 (“the Amended Injunction”). The Power of Arrest continued in force.
By order dated 1 July 2025, I further amended the Amended Injunction on the Claimant’s application to vary the provisions as to alternative service on the Persons Unknown Defendants (“the Further Amended Injunction”). An accompanying directions order, dated 1 July 2025, (“the Directions Order”) specified the required steps for alternative service of the Further Amended Injunction and Power of Arrest on the Persons Unknown Defendants.
The Claimant has filed and served the following updated witness statements:
Michelle Lowbridge, Birmingham City Council Community Safety Manager, dated 30 January 2026 and 12 February 2026.
PC Mark Campbell, the West Midlands Police subject lead for Operation Hercules, dated 29 December 2025.
Service
Paragraph 4 of the Directions Order specified the steps required to be taken by the Claimant to effect service of the Further Amended Injunction on the Persons Unknown Defendants. Those steps involved placing the documents on the Claimant’s dedicated webpage, posting links on the Claimant’s social media accounts, and placing hard copies at the front desks of the Claimant’s main offices. Paragraph 3 of the Directions Order approved the steps taken by the Claimant to date as amounting to good service of the Amended Injunction. The affidavit of Michelle Lowbridge, dated 10 July 2025, details the steps the Claimant took to comply with paragraph 4 of the Directions Order. In light of that evidence, I am satisfied that the Further Amended Injunction has been served on the Persons Unknown Defendants.
The position regards the named Defendants differs. Paragraph 6 of the Directions Order dispensed with the need for the Further Amended Injunction to be served on the named Defendants. This was because the amendments concerned only the Persons Unknown Defendants, and the named Defendants had already been served with the Amended Injunction and Power of Arrest. Paragraph 9 of the Amended Injunction granted permission to the Claimant to serve the named defendants by email and/or post and, in respect of the First and Fourth Defendants only, by adopting the provisions for alternative service provisions specified for the Persons Unknown Defendants. The witness statement of Michelle Lowbridge, dated 18 March 2025, sets out the steps taken by the Claimant to serve all named Defendant, save as to the First and Fourth Defendant, with the Amended Injunction and Power of Arrest by first class post or email. The statement of Mr Rob Sherry, dated 14 March 2025, confirms service on the same documents on the First Defendant, who was then in prison. The statement of Sue Clifton-Smith, dated 17 March 2025, confirms similar service on the Fourth Defendant, who was also then in prison. In light of that evidence, I am satisfied that the named Defendants have been served with the Amended Injunction and Power of Arrest.
Paragraphs 6 of each of the Amended Injunction and Further Amended Injunction provided the date and location of the review hearing. Therefore, even if a Defendant had not been present at the last review hearing, which they were not, each has each been served with notice of today’s hearing.
No provision was made in either the Amended Injunction or Further Amended Injunction for the Claimant to file and serve any updating evidence prior to the review hearing. The Claimant has however taken steps of its own volition to publicise the annual review and serve copies of its updated evidence. Ms Lowbridge’s statement of 12 February 2026 explains that the Claimant uploaded copies of the notice of hearing, updated case summary and a copy of the hearing bundle to the Claimant’s dedicated car cruising webpage on 5 February 2026, issued a media release on 12February and circulated the media release on its social media platforms and website the same day. The notice of hearing and details of how to access the case summary and hearing bundle were sent in hard copy or by email to the named Defendants on 6 and 7 February 2026. Notwithstanding the lack of direction as to service of evidence or a reminder as to the review hearing date, the steps taken by the Claimant were reasonable, responsible ones and I am satisfied that proper, adequate notice has been provided to the Defendants both of today’s hearing and the updated evidence relied upon.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court identified the importance of review hearings, particularly in cases involving persons unknown, in Wolverhampton City Council & others v London Gypsies and Travellers & others [2023] UKSC 47 (“Wolverhampton”). At [225]:
“[the review hearing]…will give all parties an opportunity to make full and complete disclosure to the court, supported by appropriate evidence, as to how effective the order has been; whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made.”
I considered the approach to be taken on review in North Warwickshire Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 2403 (KB). At [13]:
“13. A review hearing is not an opportunity to revisit the original merits of the claim afresh. The proper focus of the review is to consider whether anything material has changed since the injunction and power of arrest were granted. Material changes may be factual and/or developments in the law since the order was granted. If there has been a material change or changes, the Court needs to question whether the scope of the injunction needs amending or indeed whether there remains a compelling need for any kind of injunction or power or arrest at all. Such an approach is consistent with the views expressed in a number of post-Wolverhampton cases including by Ritchie J in HS2 v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB) at [32]-[33], Hill J in Valero v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB) (“Valero”) at [20]-[23], and Sweeting J in Esso Petroleum Company v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1768 (KB) (“Esso”) at [5]-[8].”
The determination as to whether there has been any material change involves consideration of the factors that needed to be considered when the injunction was first granted or, in this case, last reviewed. Ritchie J identified the relevant factors at the first review hearing in this case at [44]-[59].
The evidence
The Claimant’s updating evidence includes the following:
There has been a noticeable reduction in incidents of street cruising in Birmingham over the last twelve months. Over the last year, 5 individuals have been found to be in contempt for breaching the Amended/Further Amended Injunction, compared to 21 breaches in the year before. No Defendant has gone on to commit a second breach. [Ms Lowbridge at para. 4-6.]
Ward councillors in street-cruise hotspot areas direct complaints about street cruising to Ms Lowbridge. Unlike previous years, she has not received any complaints from councillors over the last twelve months. [Ms Lowbridge at para. 7.]
No street cruising complaints have been raised at monthly community safety meetings. [Ms Lowbridge at para. 8.]
The Claimant continues to advertise the injunction with press releases and social media posts, including details of contempt proceedings. Ms Lowbridge believes this has a positive effect in deterring further breaches. [Ms Lowbridge at para. 10.]
Ms Lowbridge is aware that street cruises have been displaced to other areas that do not have an injunction in place and fears the activity would return very quickly to Birmingham is the injunction was discharged or varied. [Ms Lowbridge at para. 12.]
The main organising group (@forza_birmingham) has a following of over 52,000 followers. They have openly stated they will not be organising any meets in the West Midlands for the foreseeable future and no large scale events have occurred for approximately six months. The activity has however been displaced to neighbouring areas, mainly West Mercia. A new organising group (@represent.mids) has emerged. Recent car cruising social media sites have polls asking groups where they want to attend. In nearly all polls, numerous followers have stated they do not wish to go to the West Midlands due to the risk associated with breaching the injunction. Street cruising activity has been displaced to other neighbouring areas, including West Mercia. [PC Campbell at para. 5-6.]
The volume of calls to the police in relation to car cruising, speeding vehicles and anti-social behaviour in Birmingham decreased from 1296 in 2023 to 969 and 967 in 2024 and 2025 respectively. [PC Campbell at para. 7-8.]
Speed alert data from Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras in the West Midlands shows a marked increase in the number of alerts being triggered from April 2025 to November 2025. [PC Campbell at para. 9-11.]
The expeditious way in which contempt proceedings are dealt with, opposed to the delays in the criminal justice system, is sending a positive deterrent message, and ensures immediate removal of the problem behaviour. [PC Campbell at para. 12.]
It is difficult to assess how many car cruises have been prevented by the injunction but over the last three months, there has only been one large scale meeting in Birmingham with approximately 25 cars. The police are still seeing smaller, friendship type, gatherings with 5 to 10 cars, which are harder to police. [PC Campbell at para. 13.]
The lack of car cruising over the last six months has provided businesses and residents with respite. In previous years, PC Campbell was contacted regularly with complaints from businesses and residents yet he is now receiving no complaints from businesses and very few from residents. [PC Campbell at para. 14.]
The police are continuing to run diversionary courses aimed at drivers identified as attending street cruising events or breaching the injunction. Since February 2025, 138 drivers have attended courses. [PC Campbell at para. 15.]
Discussion
At the review hearing on 26 February 2025, Ritchie J considered the substantive requirements (at [44] – [49]) and the procedural requirements (at [50] – [58]). Those findings are the starting point for this review.
I consider first whether there has been any material factual change which calls into question the need or required scope of the Further Amended Injunction. Unlike in the Black Country claim, where one of the local authorities wishes to discontinue its claim, there is no material factual change in this case. Considering the totality of the updated evidence, there is an identified decrease in the amount of street cruising activity within Birmingham, particularly since the granting of the Injunction but with a further step down in the last twelve months. There is however still evidence it is persisting at a lower level in Birmingham, and of it occurring in other areas that do not benefit from an injunction.
I have also considered if there has been any material legal change since the last review hearing. Counsel for the Claimants is not aware of any material change in the law, neither am I. The potential ramifications of the decision in MBR Acres Ltd & others v Curtin [2025] EWHC 331 (KB) were known about and discussed at the review hearing before Ritchie J, and his judgment addresses the various issues. Nothing has changed in that regard since then.
Taking the substantive requirements in turn:
The Claimant’s existing causes of action remain unchanged.
I accept that the Claimant has provided full and frank disclosure. The Claimant has taken steps to remind Defendants of the review hearing and serve its evidence, notwithstanding the lack of formal direction to do so. Ms Crocombe properly highlighted the apparent lack of express end date for the expiry of the Amended Injunction and need for clarity in that regard.
There remains sufficient evidence to prove the claim. In addition to the updated witness evidence as to street cruising activity, the additional proved contempt applications over the last year further add to the established factual matrix in support of the claims.
The potential defences of any Defendant remain unchanged from the considerations before the Court at the last review hearing.
The compelling justification for the injunction and power of arrest remains. The updated evidence establishes that the Amended/Further Amended Injunction and Power of Arrest have had a deterrent effect but that street cruising activity has not been entirely eliminated. The evidence indicates that street cruising activity continues to be an issue in its administrative areas as evidenced by the successful contempt applications over the past year, the need for diversionary courses, some reports from local residents and police monitoring activity. To the extent that overall street cruising activity has reduced from that seen prior to injunctive relief being in place, it is well established that evidence of that kind is not evidence that the risk has abated but that the injunction has had its intended effect: Valero at [34]; London Borough of Havering v Stokes & Ors [2025] EWHC 2603 (KB) at [33].
Damages continue not to be an adequate remedy. The form of anti-social behaviour occasioned by street-cruising is not something the Claimant can be compensated for in damages, still less would be any comfort to local residents and lawful road users.
Turning to the procedural requirements:
The identification of the Persons Unknown Defendants remained unchanged after the review hearing before Ritchie J. There has been no material change that warrants any variation to the description of the Persons Unknown.
The substantive terms of the Amended Injunction were clarified by Ritchie J. The participation in a street cruise by spectating was added as a new third limb. The Injunction already included spectating as species of participating within the definition “participating in a street cruise”. The amendment however clarified the distinction. There has been no material change to warrant further amendment of substantive terms.
The acts prohibited by the Amended Injunction continue to match the claims.
The geographical boundary of the required order does not need amendment. It covers the Claimant’s entire administrative area and, whilst some areas within that are more prone to the activity than others, there has been no material change to suggest anywhere is free from the risk of street cruising occurring.
The temporal limits of the order do need clarification. The Injunction envisaged that the order and Power of Arrest would cease at 23.59 on 27 February 2027. The Amended/Further Amended Injunction refer to continuing the Injunction but does not have the end date on the face of the order. It is essential that there is clarity on the face of such an order as to its duration. The order following this review hearing shall make it clear that both the injunction and power of arrest shall continue to 23.39pm on 27 February 2027, as envisaged by the Injunction granted by Julian Knowles J.
The Amended Injunction permitted the Claimant to serve the Persons Unknown Defendants by various alternative means. Alternative service remains appropriate. The Claimant seeks until 9 April 2026 to effect service of any revised injunction and power of arrest. That timeline is notably longer than was granted previously and unexplained. Compliance by 27 March 2026 is more reasonable. The provisions of Schedule 3, para.1(viii) of the Injunction required the Claimant to maintain roadside hard copy and electronic signage advertising the existence of the Injunction and Power of Arrest. That requirement was removed from the Amended Injunction albeit the Claimant does continue to maintain the signage. I discussed the removal with counsel during submissions. It is unclear why the requirement was removed; the judgment is silent on that issue. I propose to reinstate the requirement for the signage to be maintained as one of the requirements of alternative service. The evidence before the Court suggests that the signage is an important tool in bringing the existence of the various incarnations of the injunction and Power of Arrest to the attention of the Defendants. The Amended Order made provision for alternative service on the Named Defendants by post or email. Those steps remain proportionate. Other than the First Defendant, who has recently provided an undertaking, the Named Defendants have not chosen to participate in the proceedings, save as to those whose involvement was limited to any contempt application. It would be disproportionate to effect personal service of the revised injunction and power of arrest on them.
The right to apply to set aside or vary will continue in light of the guidance from the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton.
The Claimant submitted that a further review hearing could be fixed before the expiry of the original term on 27 February 2027. The Claimant’s draft order suggests a hearing in November 2026. The purpose of the hearing would be to determine any application by the Claimant for an extension of the injunction and power of arrest. I am not persuaded it is appropriate to list a further review at this stage. The orders will expire in any event by effluxion of time at 23.59pm on 27 February 2027. The Claimant has indicated that it is likely that they will apply to extend the injunction in due course. The onus rests on the Claimant to do that if it seeks an extension. On the making of such an application, the same would need to be served on the Defendants and listed for hearing. The merits of any extension would therefore be subject to the scrutiny of the Court at that stage. It behoves the Claimant to make a timely application and it is not appropriate for the Court to set aside time at this stage in circumstances where no application has been made, indeed may never be made.
Neither the Injunction nor Amended/Further Amended Injunction provide for the Claimant local authority to give an undertaking as to costs. There is no basis for imposing such a condition now.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that there have been no material changes to the facts, or any material legal developments, that warrant the discharge of injunctive protection or power of arrest. I propose to make minor amendments to the form of the Further Amended Injunction and Power of Arrest to reflect the observations I have made above. That is best achieved by a replacement form of amended injunction and power of arrest to ensure clarity. The new orders will replace the Further Amended Injunction and current Power of Arrest, which will be discharged and cease to apply once the new orders have been served.
HHJ Emma Kelly
SCHEDULE 1
AHZI NAGMADIN
RASHANI REID
THOMAS WHITTAKER
ARTHUR RODGERS
ABC
MR MOHAMMED WAJAHAS SHABBIR
ZOE LLOYD
CALLUM BLUNDERFIELD
GURBINDER SINGH SAHOTA
CONNOR HILL
ASIM RAHMAN
AMAN KAYANI
ADHNAN MOHAMMED
MOHAMMED DAANYAAL
BRADLEY HAYES
JOSEPH DAWSON
DANIEL GORDON
RAGHIB AFSAR
UMAR MAHMOOD
VICTORIA ADSHEAD
AAROON VIRK
BILAL AMJAD
BENJAMIN DUNN
MOHAMMED KHALIL
MARLON FARRELL
JACOB WILLIAMS
MATTHEW OLIVER BRAYNE
ABDULRAHMAN ABDULKADER
ADAM JORDAN YEOMANS
HUSNAIN MAHMOOD
AAKAASH CHANGAZ
HASSAN AHMED
GEORGE ROBERTS
ISMAIL ASHFAQ
ANEEL FARID