Appeal rejected over compensation for Tasered man

Edwin Afriyie (second right) took legal action against City of London Police after he hit his head while being Tasered by an officer in April 2018

The Court of Appeal has rejected an application from the City of London Police to appeal against a court ruling that it must pay £24,000 in compensation to a social worker who was Tasered by one of its officers.

Edwin Afriyie, 37, said he suffered head, back and leg injuries after falling backwards on to the ground and banging his head on a stone ledge in King William Street in April 2018.

A High Court trial last year found the use of the Taser had been reasonable in the circumstances, but on 25 October, the Court of Appeal ruled it was not "objectively reasonable" and damages should be awarded.

The City of London Police's appeal application was rejected on 19 November.

In its appeal application made on 31 October, the force said the judgment "threatens the effective lawful use of Tasers by the police in circumstances where they fear imminent violence against themselves or others".

'Step towards closure'

Mr Afriyie said the Court of Appeal's decision represented a "step towards closure".

"This decision provides critical validation for myself and my family after nearly seven years of emotional heartache and legal struggles," he said.

"I am grateful to the judiciary for their clarity and resolve in rejecting this appeal.

"Their decision sends a powerful message about the importance of accountability and justice, both for those directly affected and for the public at large."

Mr Afriyie was stopped by police on suspicion of driving at excessive speed and was eventually detained for failing to supply a sample of breath.

He was charged with failure to provide a specimen for analysis but was not convicted of the driving offence.

'Not objectively reasonable'

The High Court heard that Mr Afriyie was standing with his arms folded while talking to a friend when he was Tasered.

Judge Mrs Justice Hill found the use of the firearm was reasonable in the circumstances.

But in a ruling at the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Davis, sitting with the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr and Lord Justice Dingemans, said: "A proper objective analysis of whether using a weapon classified as a firearm was reasonable would have led the judge to conclude that it was not.

"Her conclusion that further negotiation would have been futile did not amount to the necessary analysis of objective reasonableness of the nature and degree of force used."

The City of London Police was contacted for comment.