Edwin Afriyie v The Commissioner of Police for the City Of London

In claims for assault and battery arising from police use of force, the defendant must establish that the officer honestly believed force was necessary, that the belief was objectively reasonable, and that the force used was no more than objectively reasonable in the circumstances. The assessment is fact-sensitive and allows for decisions made in rapidly developing situations. A taser must not be used merely to secure compliance, but its use may be proportionate where refusal to comply is linked to a reasonably perceived threat of attack or aggressive resistance. Handcuffing is justified where reasonably necessary to prevent escape or a violent breach of the peace. A lawful use of force cannot found misfeasance in public office.

The claimant brought claims in assault, battery and misfeasance in public office against the defendant police authority following his arrest after repeated unsuccessful breathalyser tests. He alleged that the initial threatened handcuffing, the discharge of a taser, and subsequent handcuffing were unlawful.

The defendant relied on statutory powers to use reasonable force, self-defence, and alleged fundamental dishonesty under Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, section 57. The central issues were whether the officers’ beliefs in the necessity of force were honest and objectively reasonable, whether the force was proportionate, whether the misfeasance claim could succeed, and whether the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest.

1. Assault and battery. The statutory tests under sections 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were identical. The defendant had to prove that the relevant officer honestly believed force was necessary, that the belief was objectively reasonable, and that the force used was no more than objectively reasonable.
2. The initial decision to handcuff was justified. The officer reasonably believed that the claimant’s increasing non-compliance and agitation created a realistic possibility of a violent breach of the peace. The threatened handcuffing therefore did not amount to an assault.
3. The taser was lawfully discharged. Although the device must not be used simply to secure compliance, the claimant’s refusal to submit to handcuffing was linked to the officer’s objectively reasonable belief that he was preparing to resist aggressively or attack an officer. The officer was entitled to act on a reasonable mistake and did not have to wait until an assault occurred. The risk and speed of the incident justified rejecting PAVA spray and further negotiation as safer or realistic alternatives.
4. Subsequent handcuffing was also reasonable because the claimant recovered quickly, remained non-compliant and aggressive, and posed a continuing risk of resistance.
5. The assault and battery claims were dismissed. Since the force was lawful, the misfeasance claim necessarily failed.
6. The claimant was not fundamentally dishonest within section 57. Although he had been dishonest about some breathalyser-related matters, those matters did not go to the heart of the claim. The section 57 dismissal mechanism therefore did not arise.