Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London

Factual and Procedural Background

At approximately 5:30 a.m. on 7 April 2018, the Appellant was stopped by City of London Police officers on suspicion of excessive speed while driving through the City of London. Although never charged with a driving offence, he was required to provide a breath sample to measure blood alcohol content. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to provide a sufficient breath sample, the Appellant was arrested for failing to supply a sample. During the arrest, police officers attempted to handcuff the Appellant but were unable to do so. While standing on the pavement with folded arms, a police officer discharged a taser at the Appellant, causing him to fall backward and strike his head on a nearby window ledge, resulting in personal injury.

The Appellant brought a civil claim against the Commissioner of Police for the City of London, alleging assault and battery and misfeasance in public office, specifically challenging the lawfulness and reasonableness of the taser use. After a five-day hearing, the trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the use of the taser lawful and objectively reasonable. The appeal concerns whether the trial judge's conclusion was reasonably open on the evidence.

The trial involved oral and written evidence from the Appellant, police officers, and witnesses, supplemented by body worn video (BWV) footage from the officers present. The judge reviewed the detailed sequence of events leading to the taser discharge, including the Appellant's conduct and the police response.

Following the incident, the Appellant sustained a minor traumatic head injury with long-lasting symptoms and moderate post-traumatic stress disorder. The police officer who used the taser completed a Use of Force form describing the Appellant as physically imposing, emotionally heightened, verbally threatening, and resisting arrest.

The trial judge considered the relevant legal framework, including statutory powers to use reasonable force in arrest and self-defence, and applied established case law principles. The judge found that the police officer honestly believed the use of force was necessary, that this belief was objectively reasonable, and that the force used was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances, thereby dismissing the claim.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the police officer honestly believed it was necessary to use force by discharging the taser at the Appellant.
2. Whether that honest belief was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
3. Whether the use of the taser constituted more force than was objectively reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances.
4. Whether the trial judge’s findings and conclusions on these issues were reasonably open on the evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] UKHL 25	Defendant in civil claim must prove honest and reasonable belief in necessity of force and that force used was reasonable.	The judge applied this test to assess the lawfulness of the taser use and the reasonableness of the officer’s belief and actions.
Chief Constable of Merseyside v McCarthy [2016] EWCA Crim 1257	Clarifies that in civil claims the force used must be reasonable and proportionate; honest belief alone is insufficient.	The court relied on this precedent to frame the legal test for objective reasonableness and proportionality of force.
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41	Appellate courts may only overturn findings of fact if they are "plainly wrong."	The court emphasised deference to the trial judge’s findings of fact unless no reasonable judge could have reached them.
Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5	Appellate courts should be cautious in interfering with trial judges’ factual findings and inferences.	Supported the principle that appellate intervention in factual conclusions is limited, especially where the trial judge had the advantage of viewing witnesses.
Dallison v Caffrey [1965] 1 QB 348	Objective reasonableness or proportionality of force used is a matter of law.	The court applied this principle to assess the proportionality of the taser use under the law.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the trial judge’s finding that the police officer honestly believed it was necessary to use force, a conclusion supported by the officer’s demeanor, the Appellant’s physical build, emotional state, verbal resistance, and stance suggesting readiness to resist arrest. The court noted that the trial judge gave appropriate weight to the officer’s evidence, including the Use of Force form and oral testimony, and recognized the fast-moving and pressured nature of the incident, which justified the officer’s honest belief.

Regarding the objective reasonableness of the officer’s belief, the court found that the trial judge’s conclusion was reasonably open on the evidence, given the circumstances and the rapid development of events. The court emphasized the importance of assessing the reasonableness of the belief based on the situation as perceived by the officer in real time.

However, the court diverged from the trial judge’s reasoning on the proportionality and objective reasonableness of the force actually used—the discharge of the taser. The trial judge had considered and rejected alternatives such as PAVA spray and giving the Appellant time to calm down but failed to explicitly assess whether the use of a taser, a prohibited and potentially lethal weapon carrying a risk of serious injury, was proportionate to the threat posed.

The court highlighted that the Appellant had been standing and conversing calmly with a friend for at least 20 seconds before folding his arms, undermining the trial judge’s characterization of the decision to use the taser as a split-second necessity. The binary choice presented by the judge—either further negotiation or taser use—was deemed insufficient without considering the inherent proportionality of deploying such a weapon. The court concluded that the trial judge did not properly analyze whether the taser use was a reasonable and proportionate response to the circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was ALLOWED.

The court held that although the police officer honestly and reasonably believed force was necessary, the actual use of the taser was not objectively reasonable or proportionate in the circumstances. The judgment of the trial judge was overturned on this point. The Appellant is entitled to damages for assault and battery resulting from the unlawful use of the taser and consequent injury. The court ordered an award of general and special damages consistent with the trial judge’s findings on quantum, which remain unchallenged.

This decision directly affects the parties by recognizing the unlawfulness of the taser deployment in the specific facts of this case but does not establish a new legal precedent beyond the application of existing principles concerning reasonable force and proportionality in civil claims against police officers.