Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 1116 (Admin)
Edwin Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London
25 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1269
Court of Appeal
A police officer tasered a man who was arguing but not attacking. A higher court said the taser use wasn't justified, even though the officer thought it was necessary, because it wasn't a proportionate response in the circumstances. Using a taser, which can be deadly, wasn't reasonable given the situation.
Key Facts
- •Edwin Afriyie (appellant) was stopped by City of London Police for suspected speeding on April 7, 2018.
- •He was arrested for failing to provide a breath sample.
- •PC Pringle tasered the appellant, who fell and hit his head.
- •The appellant sued for assault, battery, and misfeasance in public office.
- •The High Court dismissed the claim, finding the taser use lawful and reasonable.
- •The appeal focuses on whether the judge's conclusion was reasonably open to her on the evidence.
Legal Principles
In a civil claim for assault and battery involving self-defense or use of police powers, the defendant must prove the force used was both honestly and reasonably believed necessary and objectively reasonable in all circumstances.
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] UKHL 25; Chief Constable of Merseyside v McCarthy [2016] EWCA Crim 1257
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 justifies the use of reasonable force in preventing crime or effecting lawful arrests.
Criminal Law Act 1967
Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows reasonable force during arrest (adds nothing to the 1967 Act).
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
An appellate court should not overturn a trial judge's factual conclusions unless plainly wrong; the court considers the 'sea of evidence' while an appellate court only 'island hops'.
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5
Authorised Police Practice (APP) guidance on taser use: proportionate response to identified threat; not for simple compliance; duration of discharge must be proportionate, lawful, accountable, and absolutely necessary (PLAN).
College of Policing APP
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's conclusion that the taser use was objectively reasonable was not reasonably open to her. The judge did not adequately consider the proportionality of using a taser, particularly given the lack of immediate threat and the availability of less dangerous alternatives. The officer's belief, while honest, was not objectively reasonable.
Similar Cases
R (on the application of Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and others
[2023] UKSC 24
Wayne Leighton v Chief Constable Of North Yorkshire Police
[2024] EWHC 2426 (KB)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Sidney Price & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2864 (Admin)
The Chief Constable of Essex v Matthew Carter
[2024] EWHC 126 (KB)