Social employee Tasered by police wins damages after he was hit together with his arms folded whereas speaking to a good friend

A social worker who was tasered by police whilst talking to a friend in central London has won his appeal for damages. 

Edwin Afriyie, 38, pursued legal action against City of London Police claiming he suffered head, back, and leg injuries due to being tasered by officers. 

Last year a High Court trial heard that Mr Afriyie was stood with his arms folded talking to a friend when he was tasered by police on King William Street.   

At the time, a judge determined that the use of the firearm was reasonable in the circumstances, however Mr Afriyie took the case to the Court of Appeal. 

Today three senior judges ruled the use of the Taser was not ‘objectively reasonable’ and that damages should be awarded.

In a ruling, Lord Justice William Davis, sitting with the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr and Lord Justice Dingemans, said: ‘He (Mr Afriyie) was standing and talking to his friend. 

Edwin Afriyie, 38, pursued legal action against City of London Police claiming he suffered head, back, and leg injuries due to being tasered by officers

Last year a High Court trial heard that Mr Afriyie was stood with his arms folded talking to a friend when he was tasered by police on King William Street.

‘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.’

Agreeing with the ruling, Baroness Carr said: ‘Tasers are prohibited firearms. They are potentially lethal weapons.

‘The use of a Taser on the appellant, who at the time of discharge was standing still in a non-aggressive stance with his arms folded and talking to his friend, was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.’

Mr Afriyie, who is in his 30s, was stopped by police at around 5.30am on April 7 2018 on suspicion of driving at excessive speed. 

He was eventually detained for failing to supply a sample of breath but was not charged with a driving offence.

Footage of Mr Afriyie shown at a hearing last year showed the 38-year-old falling backwords and landing with his head on a step and his body on the pavement.

His barrister, David Hughes, told the trial at the time that ‘he fell like a falling tree’, adding that Mr Afriyie ‘could have been killed’.

Mr Afriyie later brought legal action against the police for assault, battery and misfeasance in a public office.

Today three senior judges ruled the use of the Taser was not ‘objectively reasonable’ and that damages should be awarded

Mrs Justice Hill ruled last June that the police constable ‘honestly believed that the use of the Taser was necessary; that his belief was objectively reasonable; and that the use of the Taser was no more than was objectively reasonable in the circumstances’.

However, Lord Justice William Davis concluded in the most recent hearing that the original judge and consider if the weapon carried risk of serious injury. 

He also noted that the judge did not consider the response ‘was a reasonable response to the situation’.

‘The judge was wrong to say that the situation as shown on the body-worn video footage involved a split-second decision by the officer,’ he said.

‘The appellant had been standing facing and talking to Mr Cole for at least 20 seconds before he folded his arms.

‘He was in that position for another few seconds before the Taser was discharged.

‘Objectively, the officer was not faced with or forced into a split-second decision.

‘More to the point, the binary choice identified by the judge did not involve any consideration of whether using a Taser per se was reasonable.

Mr Afriyie, who is in his 30s, was stopped by police at around 5.30am on April 7 2018 on suspicion of driving at excessive speed

He was eventually detained for failing to supply a sample of breath but was not charged with a driving offence.

‘Even if ‘further negotiation with the appellant would be futile’ that did not mean that it was proportionate to use a Taser on him.’

The judge added that Mrs Justice Hill had previously determined damages ‘in case she were found to be wrong in relation to any aspect of the merits of the appellant’s claim’.

Mrs Justice Hill said she would have awarded Mr Afriyie £24,000 in ‘general’ and ‘special’ damages, which the Court of Appeal said would now be awarded.

A spokesperson for City of London Police said: ‘We are disappointed by the ruling published today and will need to take time to consider our next steps before we can comment further.’