A young black worker, who had his arms crossed, was hit with a stun gun by police officers during a traffic stop. He has been granted the right to appeal after losing a case for compensation against the City of London police.
According to the statements of the officers, Edwin Afriyie assumed a “fighting stance” before being struck by the Taser, but the body-worn camera footage from the police revealed that his arms were crossed and he was standing at a considerable distance from them.
Afriyie, who is 37 years old, injured his head on a stone ledge and suffered a minor injury due to being knocked backwards by the shot.
In June, a judge in the high court declared that officers had a genuine belief that using a stun gun on Afriyie was necessary due to his size and physical strength, as well as his visibly agitated state.
Lord Justice William Davis granted permission for an appeal, stating that after viewing the body-worn footage, he believed there was a strong chance of success for the appeal and that there was valid reasoning to argue that the initial judge made a mistake. The appeal is scheduled to take place in early 2024 at the court of appeal.
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 contends that the judge made an incorrect assessment in ruling that the use of a Taser on Afriyie was justified. It also claims that the police did not adhere to the guidelines for using the weapon, which state that it should only be used when it is appropriate, legal, justifiable, and absolutely necessary.
On April 7, 2018, while driving three friends home from a party in east London, Afriyie, who is employed by a local authority to assist care leavers, was stopped by police in the City. The officers accused him of speeding, but he refuted this claim by noting the presence of speed bumps on the road. He suspects that he was targeted due to his race and driving a Mercedes coupe.
The police administered a breathalyzer test, but the machine continued to show an inconclusive reading. They instructed him to place his hands behind his back for handcuffing, but he refused, stating that he had followed their instructions by ceasing to blow into the device.
He was ultimately accused of not providing a sample for analysis. However, when the court ordered the prosecution to present body-worn camera footage, the charges were dropped.
Afriyie expressed deep concern and discouragement over the high court judge’s initial ruling that the stun gun shooting was justified. This highlights systemic issues within the justice system and the struggles faced by black individuals in holding law enforcement accountable for unjust actions.
Afriyie remains deeply affected by the incident and the subsequent legal proceedings. He explains, “Every day, I am forced to relive the distressing events and ongoing battles in court. The defense lawyer’s continuous dismissal of my traumatic experiences only adds to the emotional burden. The lack of justice since the incident in 2018 has left a lasting wound, making it difficult to progress.”
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.
Kevin Donoghue, Afriyie’s lawyer, expressed his satisfaction with the court of appeal’s ruling in Edwin’s case and is glad that he will now have the chance to correct this injustice. He hopes that if the court rules in favor of Edwin, the City of London police and other police forces will acknowledge the decision and reassess their practices and training regarding the use of Tasers, especially when it comes to marginalized communities who are unfairly impacted by aggressive use of force by officers.
Carly Humphreys, the Superintendent in charge of professional standards at the City of London police, stated that the police department is aware that an appeal for a civil claim has been approved regarding an incident on April 7, 2018. It is not suitable to provide any further comments at this moment.
Source: theguardian.com
