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

In a civil claim arising from the use of a Taser, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the force was reasonable. The court first identifies what the officer honestly understood the facts to be, allowing reliance on a mistake only where it was reasonable. It then assesses objectively whether the force was reasonable and proportionate on those facts. The assessment must include the risks created by the Taser itself, including uncontrolled falls and injury to vulnerable subjects or children. Guidance requiring a clear warning and sufficient time to respond should be followed unless that would create undue risk or be inappropriate. A Taser is not a compliance tool. Where those requirements are not met, the use of the Taser may constitute assault and battery notwithstanding an honestly held suspicion.

The claimant, aged 14 at the time, was among a group of youths who ran when police attended an estate following a report of fighting and a knife. A police constable discharged a Taser as the claimant ran past, causing him to fall and suffer serious facial and eye injuries. Claims for false imprisonment and assault by handcuffing had been settled. The remaining issue was whether the discharge constituted reasonable force under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including whether the officer reasonably suspected that the claimant had a knife or was chasing other youths, whether the warning was adequate, and what damages were payable.

1. Liability. The claim for assault and battery succeeded. The defendant bore the burden of proving that the Taser discharge was reasonable.
2. The applicable civil test had two stages. First, the court determined what the officer honestly understood the facts to be. If the officer made a mistake of fact, reliance on it required the mistake to have been reasonable. Secondly, the court assessed objectively whether the response was reasonable in all the circumstances, against the facts reasonably understood by the officer.
3. The officer had not reasonably established that the claimant was carrying a knife or chasing other youths. The claimant was not chasing anyone and no weapon was found. The officer’s account developed over time, and the surrounding evidence did not support an imminent threat to another person.
4. The Taser guidance required use in accordance with the National Decision Model and prohibited use as a compliance tool. Where circumstances permitted, a clear warning and sufficient time to respond were required, subject to risks making that inappropriate. The officer gave a warning but fired within about one second. The claimant therefore had no sufficient opportunity to comply.
5. The court had to balance the perceived risk posed by the claimant against the known risks of Taser use, including an uncontrolled fall and head injury. On the findings, the discharge was neither objectively reasonable nor proportionate and was not justified under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
6. Damages totalled £131,984.87, comprising £55,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, past losses, future expenses and £26,560 for loss of earning capacity. No aggravated damages were awarded. The settled claims and any finding of contributory negligence were excluded from determination.

First instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.