A social worker who was Tasered by police in central London will receive damages after successfully challenging a ruling dismissing his compensation claim in the Court of Appeal.
Edwin Afriyie took legal action against City of London Police, claiming he suffered head, back and leg injuries due to being tasered during the incident in King William Street in April 2018.
A High Court trial heard last year that Mr Afriyie was stood with his arms folded while talking to a friend when he was Tasered, but a judge found that the use of the firearm was reasonable in the circumstances.
Mr Afriyie took the case to the Court of Appeal, with his lawyers arguing at a hearing in October that the judge's conclusion was wrong.
On Friday, 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. 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.
She continued: "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 and was eventually detained for failing to supply a sample of breath.
He was not charged with a driving offence.
Footage showed him falling backwards, landing with his head on a step and his body on the pavement, with his barrister, David Hughes, telling a trial last year that "he fell like a falling tree" and "could have been killed".
Mr Afriyie later brought legal action against the police for assault, battery and misfeasance in a public office, with Mr Hughes claiming the Tasering was not in response to an "identified threat".
His legal claim did not address race discrimination but he told the Guardian he believes he was singled out because he was a black man driving a Mercedes coupe.
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".
But in a 12-page ruling, Lord Justice William Davis said the original judge "did not stand back and ask whether the use of a weapon which carried the risk of serious injury to the appellant was a reasonable response to the situation".
He said: "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.
"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.
"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.”
