A black youth worker who was standing with his arms folded when he was shot with a stun gun by officers during a traffic stop has been given permission to appeal over a lost claim for damages against City of London police.
Officers claimed in statements that Edwin Afriyie had adopted a “fighting stance” before he was hit by the Taser electrical weapon but police body-worn camera footage showed his arms were folded and he was standing at a distance from them.
Afriyie, 37, hit his head on a stone ledge and sustained a minor injury after the shot knocked him backwards.
A high court judge ruled in June that officers “honestly believed” shooting Afriyie with the stun gun was necessary because he “was a large and muscular man” who “was clearly very agitated”.
Granting permission to appeal, Lord Justice William Davis wrote that having seen the body-worn footage, he believed an appeal had a real prospect of success, and that there was a “sensible basis for arguing that [the judge] fell into error”. The case is expected to be heard at the court of appeal early in 2024.
Afriyie said: “This appeal being allowed represents a significant stride towards justice, not only for me but also for individuals who share similar experiences of being disproportionately targeted by the police.”
The appeal argues that the judge was wrong to assess that the use of a Taser weapon on Afriyie was lawful and that police failed to follow the guidance on its use, which insists that it only be used in circumstances that are “proportionate, lawful, accountable and absolutely necessary”.
Afriyie, who works for a local authority supporting care leavers, was driving three friends back from a party in east London on 7 April 2018 when he was pulled over by police in the City. Officers told Afriyie they believed he was speeding but he denied this, pointing out that the road had speed bumps. He believes he was singled out because he was a black man driving a Mercedes coupe.
Police breathalysed him but the machine kept registering an inconclusive result. He was asked to put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed and he refused to do so, saying he had done as police had told him when he had stopped blowing into the device.
He was later charged with failure to provide a sample for analysis. But when the prosecution was ordered by magistrates to provide body-worn camera footage, it dropped the case.
Afriyie said the high court judge’s initial assessment that the stun gun shooting was justified was “deeply concerning and disheartening” and underlined “some of the systemic issues within the justice system and the challenges faced by black individuals seeking accountability for unjust actions by law enforcement”.
The incident and the ensuing court case have stayed with Afriyie. He said: “Daily, I find myself reliving the harrowing events and the ongoing struggles in court. The defence barrister’s relentless dismissal of my traumatic experiences adds to the emotional toll. Since the incident in 2018, the absence of justice leaves an open wound, making it challenging to move forward.”
Afriyie’s legal claim did not go into race discrimination but he said before the high court hearing that police in the incident “treated him like a wild animal” and that it would not have happened if he was white.
Afriyie’s solicitor, Kevin Donoghue, said: “I am really pleased with the court of appeal’s decision in Edwin’s case and that he will now have the opportunity to right this wrong. I hope that if the court finds in Edwin’s favour, the City of London police – and other police forces up and down the country – will respect the decision and re-evaluate culture and training surrounding the use of Taser, particularly against marginalised communities who are disproportionately affected by such draconian uses of force by police officers.”
Det Supt Carly Humphreys, the head of professional standards at the City of London police, said: “The City of London police is aware that permission has been granted for an appeal of a civil claim in relation to an incident that took place on 7 April 2018. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.”
