Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate, represented Edwin Afriyie in his civil action against the City of London Police. The case was decided in Mr Afriyie’s favour at the Court of Appeal.
By Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate and legal representative for Edwin Afriyie in his case against the City of London Police
In my last blog post I described how I recently attended the Court of Appeal with my client, Edwin Afriyie (Ed, as I call him) to appeal against an unfavourable High Court judgment.
Today I am thrilled to report that Mr Afriyie succeeded in the appeal. This means that Ed will now receive over £24,000 compensation. He also knows that, after six years and two High Court trials, the civil court system has worked to right a wrong caused by the police.
What happened?
The brief circumstances which gave rise to the appeal are:
On 7 April 2018, PC Pringle (a City of London Police officer) shot Edwin Afriyie, a Black motorist, with a Taser during a traffic stop. Ed sustained serious injuries when he fell to the ground, banging his head on a stone ledge.
With my help, Mr Afriyie brought a civil action against the police claiming damages for assault & battery and misfeasance in public office.
The City of London Police denied liability, which meant that Ed had no alternative but to take the case to a High Court trial which lasted five days in 2022. Unfortunately, the judge fell ill before completing his judgment. This meant that the whole case had to be re-tried, over five days again, in 2023.
After the second trial the judge, Mrs Justice Hill, found that Mr Afriyie did not prove his claim because, in her opinion:
- PC Pringle “honestly believed” that it was necessary to shoot Ed with his Taser; and
- that it was a “necessary” and “objectively reasonable” use of force.
Ed was understandably despondent. As he told Emily Dugan at the Guardian:
“It just doesn’t feel right. How can she say it was justified to Taser me?”
This could have been the end of the road for his case, because Mrs Justice Hill refused Ed permission to appeal. But we appealed directly to the Court of Appeal. (Read how here: Edwin Afriyie’s Appeal: The Inside Story.)
The Court of Appeal rarely agrees to hear appeals from the many thousands of cases heard every year. But, after viewing Body Cam footage, it granted Mr Afriyie permission to appeal because, as the reviewing judge said:
By reference to that footage, the appeal has a real prospect of success. The judge’s reasoning was careful and detailed. However, I am satisfied that there is a sensible basis for arguing that she fell into error.
Edwin Afriyie with his lawyers David Hughes, barrister (left) and Kevin Donoghue, solicitor (right) after the second High Court trial in 2023.
Why the Court of Appeal Overturned the High Court Judgment in Edwin Afriyie’s Case
On 8 October 2024, the three-member Court of Appeal panel, led by The Lady Chief Justice herself, heard the appeal presented by Mr Afriyie’s legal team. You can watch the full hearing on YouTube.
Today (25 October 2024), Lord Justice William Davies handed-down a 21-page written judgment, which the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Justice Dingemans approved. (Read it on the National Archives website.)
In the judgment, the Court of Appeal unanimously agreed that Mrs Justice Hill had erred in law. Its core finding was that while:
- subjectively, PC Pringle may have had a genuinely held belief that he was justified in using his Taser (a decision which could not be interfered with on appeal);
- objectively, the use of a Taser was not reasonable in the circumstances.
Specifically, the Court of Appeal held that:
“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. Even if “further negotiation with the (appellant) would be futile”, that did not mean that it was proportionate to use a taser on him. He was standing and talking to his friend. 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.”
– William Davis LJ
Will the City of London Police Appeal?
As I explained in this blog post, appealing a judgment to the Court of Appeal is not easy. Appealing to the Supreme Court is even harder, as the test is even more stringent.
We simply don’t know the Police’s intentions. Time will tell.
Hopefully, the Court of Appeal’s decision will mark the end of Ed’s six-year journey.
What Does the Judgment Mean for Edwin Afriyie?
In layman’s terms, Ed has won, and the Court of Appeal has reversed the 2023 High Court judgment.
Mr Afriyie now has a court judgment proving that he was right to bring a civil action against the City of London Police and is entitled to compensation as a result of its officer’s actions.
Before the Court of Appeal hearing, the parties agreed Mrs Justice Hill’s valuation of Ed’s claim at £24,091.58, which was calculated by the judge as follows:
- £1,000 for the Taser assault
- £5,000 for the head injuries caused by hitting the stone ledge
- £15,000 for clinically diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
- £3,091.58 for quantifiable losses, including Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and other out-of-pocket expenses.
But Ed is entitled to even more compensation because we made a “Part 36” offer to settle which was less than the amount ordered by the High Court.
The police’s refusal to settle for our lower offer means that the Force is required to pay Ed an additional 10% of his damages and interest, together with his legal costs.
Richard Clayton KC, David Hughes, Barrister, Edwin Afriyie, Claimant, and Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate stand outside the Royal Courts of Justice after appearing before the Court of Appeal on 8 October 2024.
What Does This Case Mean for Society?
Words matter. The Court of Appeal rightly describes the Taser weapon as a “firearm”, not a “stun gun”, as the police often call it in the media to downplay its often deadly effects.
Dismissing the impact of Taser firearms, by pretending that these weapons are something closer to a sci-fi toy than a gun, could encourage individual officers to use them more readily, especially when interacting with Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people (BAME) who are seven times more likely to be victims of Tasers than white people.
Downplaying the risk of harm is also an institutional issue which must be addressed. As I mentioned in this blog post, police officers are given a paltry three days’ training in Taser use with an annual refresher course.
I hope that this judgment, the first of its kind in England and Wales, brings home to the police the risks associated with the use of Taser firearms, and reminds them that there will be serious financial and reputational consequences for misuse.
The timing of the judgment’s release is notable in that regard. Earlier this week, Sgt Martyn Blake of the Metropolitan Police was cleared of murdering Chris Kaba with a police firearm.
Sadly, the National Police Chiefs’ Council is exploiting this tragedy to lobby government to make it harder to investigate and prosecute officers in all uses of force, not just those involving firearms.
This judgment should help reassure the public that the police are being watched closely by civil lawyers like me, and that we will take aggressive action to hold the police to account where appropriate.
Lastly, the Court of Appeal’s approach to this matter shows that the civil court system can be an effective bulwark against injustice at the hands of State actors like the police. As Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. said:
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
Notable Mentions
Firstly, I must thank both barristers, Mr David Hughes and Mr Richard Clayton KC for their immense dedication and courage. To the saying, “not all heroes wear capes” I would add, “some wear wigs and robes”.
They both played a crucial role, alongside Ed and myself, in reaching this successful outcome. It has been a personal and professional privilege to work alongside them.
Secondly, I want to thank my team at the Mothership back in Liverpool who have assisted me greatly throughout the six-year battle. I am honoured to have such a talented and committed team.
Lastly, and most importantly, I want to thank Ed for showing the tenacity and strength to see this through to the end. It has been emotionally very tough for him and his loved ones, but their dignity and class has shone through.
I want to also thank Ed for keeping the faith in his legal team at every stage; he never wavered and always accepted the considered advice he was given. In short, he has been a pleasure to represent.
Kevin Donoghue is a Solicitor Advocate and Director of Donoghue Solicitors. Contact him here.
Update on 19 November 2024
The Court of Appeal found in Ed Afriyie’s favour in it’s Order of 25 October 2024. As I mentioned above, I hoped that this would be an end to the matter. But, if they were determined to do so, the City of London Police could seek permission to appeal Mr Afriyie’s case to the Supreme Court.
The two routes available to them to seek permission were:
- asking the same Court of Appeal judges who recently found against them, or
- directly to the Supreme Court.
The police sought permission via the first route in an application filed on 1 November. In it, the police argued that the Court, which comprised three of the most senior judges in the land, erred in three ways. For brevity, they submitted that the Court of Appeal:
- “irrationally overturned the trial judge’s third critical finding that PC Pringle’s use of the Taser was objectively reasonable in the circumstances”
- “usurped the trial judge’s careful and reasonable factual findings without having the trial judge’s forensic advantage of seeing and hearing the Claimant and PC Pringle give evidence before her.” And, lastly, the police argued that
- “permission to appeal should be granted because the Court of Appeal’s judgment is likely to have a chilling effect on front-line police officers for whom the Taser is an important accoutrement in protecting themselves and others from unlawful violence.”
Today, the Court of Appeal refused the police permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Using the same numbering, the Court said:
- “It was not irrational to reach a contrary conclusion on the issue of objective reasonableness to that arrived at by the judge. As the judgments made clear, the Court determined that the judge’s finding in relation to objective reasonableness failed to give any weight to the issue of the proportionality of the action of the police officer who used the taser. That was why the court found that the judge had failed properly to consider this element of the case. The Court’s reasoning is at paragraph 43 and 44 of the lead judgment.
- Overturning the decision of the judge was not based simply on what was apparent on the body worn camera footage as implicitly is asserted in the second ground of appeal. The Court did not use the trial judge’s function as a fact finder. Rather, it determined that the judge’s conclusion in relation to objective reasonableness failed to address an important component of that factor.
- There is no sensible reason why the judgment of the Court will have a chilling effect on frontline police officers. Irrespective of the judgment police officers should follow the College of Policing guidance referred to in the judgment. The terms of that guidance are clear on the need for any use of a taser to be proportionate. That word is used three times within a single short paragraph on the use of tasers. The judgment says nothing that the guidance does not say.”
The clear and succinct language of this Court Order merely affirms what the City of London Police were told in the Court of Appeal’s original Order. I hope that, this time, they will take it on board and accept that this case has ended, for both Ed’s and the taxpayer’s sake.
Update on 22 November 2024
As I described earlier this week, the Court of Appeal refused to grant the City of London Police permission to appeal.
This meant that the case was over, unless the police filed an application to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. They had until today to make such an application.
I received a copy this morning and will update readers in due course.
Update on 19 March 2025
To recap: the City of London Police and its lawyers were told twice by the Court of Appeal that the Force was liable for the unlawful acts of PC Pringle when he Tasered Edwin Afriyie. As I describe above, the Court of Appeal found that, objectively, the use of a Taser was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The first time the police were told this was in the written Court Order dated 25 October 2024, which was handed down by the Court of Appeal after the hearing on 8 October 2024.
The second was on 19 November 2024 when the Court of Appeal refused the police permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal rejected the Force’s argument that, among other things, it “irrationally overturned the trial judge’s third critical finding that PC Pringle’s use of the Taser was objectively reasonable in the circumstances”.
This left the police with a stark choice:
- accept the Court of Appeal’s clear rulings and end the case at that point, or
- ignore them and seek permission to appeal from the Supreme Court itself.
Unfortunately, as I described above, the police chose to appeal, trying to overturn the Court of Appeal’s decision for a third time.
Impact of the police’s appeal to the Supreme Court
For Edwin, myself, and his barristers David Hughes and Richard Clayton KC, this meant more uncertainty because, while the appeal process played out, the police did not have to pay Edwin his compensation or legal costs.
It also meant a lot more work for me and his barristers as we had to prepare and file a detailed response to the police’s appeal within strict time limits.
Inevitably, raising the stakes in this way increased the pressure on all of us. This is because, unlike the police, Edwin and his lawyers received no public funding to fight his case which we pursued on a “no win no fee” basis.
We filed our response and waited for the Supreme Court’s verdict, which arrived today and is shown below (opens in new tab):
Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London – Supreme Court judgment 19 March 2025
As you can see, a three-judge panel on the Supreme Court ordered that:
- Permission to appeal be REFUSED on the ground that the application does not raise an arguable point of law
- The costs of and occasioned by resisting the application for permission to appeal be paid by the Appellants to the Respondents, the amount of those costs to be assessed if not agreed.
What does the Supreme Court’s judgment mean?
In its brief Order, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the City of London Police’s legal arguments did not fly.
Consequently, this is the end of the road for The City of London Police. They have now been told three times by the highest courts in the land that they are liable for Mr Afriyie’s civil claim.
The Force must now pay Mr Afryie the compensation and legal costs he is legally entitled to receive. As I explained above, in 2023 the High Court calculated his damages to be £24,091.58.
This amount will have to be re-calculated thanks to the delays and extra legal costs caused by the police’s ill-advised appeals, And, as I point out, the Force must pay even more compensation because it failed to beat Edwin’s “Part 36” offer which we made to try and settle the claim.
The police’s refusal to accept Edwin’s reasonable proposal, which was for an amount less than he was awarded at Court, means that it now must pay Edwin an extra 10% of his damages and interest, along with extra legal costs.
Final Thoughts on Edwin’s Case
I won’t repeat my notable mentions, save to say that Edwin and I have been pursuing his case for nearly seven years. During that time, Mr Afriyie has endured the effects of proving police misconduct through the civil court process with grace and fortitude. He never wavered under pressure and kept us going with his steadfast commitment to justice. Ed, you have my total respect and admiration.
Lastly, I invite readers to reflect on the conduct of the City of London Police and its legal advisers. As an agent of the State, the Force has virtually unlimited funds thanks to taxpayers. But it must use this money responsibly. I leave it to you to decide if defending this case through two trials, and three appeals, was an appropriate use of those scarce resources.
