Dale Jamal Amadu-Abdullah v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

The claimant, aged 14 at the time, sued the Metropolitan Police for assault after Police Constable Adamson discharged a Taser which brought him to the ground causing a fractured eye orbit and optic nerve injury. The court applied the civil use-of-force test (the subjective 'trigger' and the objective 'response' limb, as explained in R (Officer W80) v IOPC) and considered statutory powers under s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 and s.117 PACE 1984 and College of Policing guidance on conducted energy device use.

The judge found on the balance of probabilities that PCA did not see the claimant chasing other youths and that no knife was seen or recovered from the claimant. PCA's account that he saw a shiny 4-inch blade and that the claimant was pursuing others was rejected as enhanced over time and inconsistent with the body-worn camera footage and contemporaneous reports. The discharge occurred within about one second of a shouted warning and gave no realistic time to comply.

Applying the civil test, the judge concluded any factual mistake by PCA (that the claimant was armed and chasing others) was not one he was entitled to rely upon because objectively there were insufficient grounds to form that belief at the moment of discharge. The use of the Taser therefore was not reasonable or proportionate and did not comply with the College of Policing guidance (notably on warnings and the risk of head injury from falls). The assault claim succeeded and damages were assessed at £131,984.87. Aggravated damages were not awarded.

Background and parties: The claimant, then aged 14, was part of a group of youths on an Estate in Edmonton on 7 February 2020. A resident reported youths fighting and a knife. Police attended, the youths scattered, and PC Adamson discharged his X2 Taser at the claimant as he ran, causing him to fall and sustain facial and optic nerve injuries. The claimant sued for assault and false imprisonment; the latter and the handcuffing assault were settled. The issue tried was whether the Taser discharge was lawful and reasonable.

Nature of the claim / relief sought: Damages for assault (battery) arising from the discharge of a Taser; assessment of quantum including future loss (Smith v Manchester type claim) and heads for scar revision and ophthalmic care.

Issues framed by the court:

• Subjective: did PCA genuinely believe the claimant was armed and was chasing other youths?
• Objective: did PCA have reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant was armed and chasing others?
• Was the risk to third parties sufficient to justify the Taser when balanced against the risk of injury to the claimant?
• Did the discharge comply with College of Policing guidance (warnings, NDM, avoidance of using Taser as a compliance tool) and was the force overall reasonable and proportionate?
• If liability established, what is the appropriate quantum for pain, disability, scarring, future interventions and loss of earning capacity?

Evidence and reasoning: The judge reviewed witness statements, contemporaneous police forms, IOPC interview material and the body-worn camera (BWC). The BWC timings and footage showed the warning and firing occurring within about one second and demonstrated PCA’s subsequent conduct (he did not turn or address people the claimant was alleged to be chasing). Contemporaneous police documentation did not support the later, enhanced recollection that the claimant carried a knife or was chasing multiple youths. The judge found the claimant credible in denying he had a weapon and not chasing others. The officer’s recollection had expanded over time and was inconsistent with the immediate documentary record and footage.

On law, the burden rested on the defendant to prove the force was reasonable. Applying the two-limb civil test (trigger and response) and the qualification that an honest mistake of fact is only available where the mistake was reasonable, the judge held PCA lacked sufficient objective grounds to form a belief that the claimant was about to attack others such as to justify immediate discharge. The warning given was too brief to allow compliance and the risks of an uncontrolled fall (noted in College of Policing guidance) weighed against proximate use of a Taser. The Taser discharge was therefore unlawful.

Outcome and quantum: The claim for assault by Taser succeeded. Damages were assessed at £131,984.87 (including a general award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity of £55,000, past losses and future care/medical costs including squint surgery and Botox, scar revision surgery and a Smith-type award for loss of earning capacity reduced to a net figure of £26,560). Aggravated damages were not made out and contributory negligence was not considered.

The claim is allowed. The judge found that PC Adamson's discharge of the Taser was not lawful or proportionate: the officer lacked sufficient objective grounds to conclude the claimant was armed and chasing others, the warning and time to comply were insufficient in the circumstances and the College of Policing guidance had not been followed. On those findings the Taser deployment constituted an unlawful assault and damages of £131,984.87 were awarded.