Use of Weapons: Holding the Police To Account for Taser Injuries

This blog post recounts the case of Dimitri, a black man who was seriously injured after being unlawfully tasered by Nottinghamshire Police while attempting to flee an aggressive and racially charged confrontation during the Covid restrictions in 2021.

Despite having committed no offence and posing no threat, Dimitri was pursued by officers, tasered from behind while climbing a six-foot gate, and left with multiple fractures to his spine after falling unconscious. His ordeal was compounded by his premature removal from hospital, humiliating treatment in police custody, and criminal charges for public order and resisting arrest that were later discontinued by the CPS.

The post examines the systemic failures that followed, including a biased police complaints investigation, missing evidence, and a hollow apology that carried no meaningful consequences for the officers involved. It then explains how a wide-ranging civil claim for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution was pursued on Dimitri’s behalf, ultimately forcing the police to settle the case for £30,000 shortly before trial. The outcome demonstrates how civil litigation can succeed in delivering accountability and compensation for victims of police taser misuse where internal complaint processes so often fail.

Content Authenticity Statement

100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.

Use of Weapons: Holding the Police To Account for Taser Injuries

Just weeks ago, news headlines were caught by the story of a man who was paralysed after being shot from behind by a taser-wielding Metropolitan Police officer, PC Liam Newman, whilst climbing at height. The officer was quite rightly prosecuted: quite unsurprisingly, he was not convicted. Judges and jurors both, in my experience, display significant bias towards the ‘blue’ side when Police brutality is in the dock.

But that is the state of affairs in the criminal courts; in the civil justice system, in which I am an expert practitioner, very different outcomes can be achieved from very similar circumstances.

For also in January 2026, I concluded a claim for one of my clients, tasered whilst climbing a gate, winning him no less than £30,000 damages from Nottinghamshire Police.

Dimitri’s Story: A Case Study in Police Taser Misuse

Dimitri’s story takes us back to the Summer of 2021, when the Covid lockdown had been relaxed, but social distancing rules were still in place. Dimitri, a black man, was at a bar in Nottingham city centre with a male and a female friend. They had been having a good time, but were unfortunately asked to leave because it was deemed that Dimitri’s male friend was breaching the Covid laws by ‘dancing’ away from his table. Remember, this was back during that strange period when the health emergency had led to the most anodyne of activities becoming ‘criminalised.’

Racially Charged Policing and Escalation Outside a Nottingham Bar

Dimitri acted to successfully defuse a confrontation between his friend and the club bouncers, but, outside, a number of Police officers on patrol, honed in on the situation and then inflamed matters by badgering the three friends – in particular, repeatedly using the racially loaded word “boy” towards Dimitri (in fact a man in his mid- 30s).

When Dimitri remonstrated with the Officers over their use of that word, one of them, PC Butler, assaulted my client by pushing him across the street and threatening him with the words “I’ll give you a count of 10 to leave”.

Unlawful Assault, Threats and the Failure to De-Escalate

In response, Dimitri started to count 1-10 by way of mocking the Officer’s authoritarian pomposity; unfortunately, this just provoked PC Butler to lunge at my client.

Not wanting the Officer to manhandle him any further, Dimitri began to back away, but he was now pursued by all 3 of the Officers, (Butler, Wilde and McClintock). The Officers took hold of Dimitri’s arms and PC Butler attempted to handcuff him with the words, “I’ve had enough of you, I’m taking you in”.

Fleeing an Unlawful Arrest and Police Use of Force

Dimitri was convinced that he had done nothing to justify the Officer’s existing aggression towards him, and he was genuinely concerned, especially in light of what he already perceived as their racist attitude towards him, about how much further they were willing to go.

Furthermore, he had not been formally arrested for any offence and so, in the context of what he saw as an unlawful assault by the Officers (and I would certainly agree with him), Dimitri pulled free of their grasp and fled.

The Officers could have just let him go. Indeed, just moments before that was what PC Butler had been ordering – for Dimitri to leave. No one had accused Dimitri of any criminal behaviour whatsoever – not even, at this stage, the Officers themselves.

Police Ego, Adrenaline and the Decision to Give Chase

As is so often the case in this sort of situation, however, anger, ego and adrenalin seems to have flooded the Officers’ decision making faculties, and they all gave chase to my client as if he was a red-handed culprit escaping from the scene of a serious crime.

After being pursued by the Officers for some distance, Dimitri was aware of one Officer running behind him and could hear that Officer, now known to be PC McClintock, shouting that he had a taser gun.

What Are Police Taser Weapons and When Are They Lawfully Used?

Tasers, or “Conducted Energy Devices” (CEDs) are deemed by the Home Office Code of Practice on Police Use of Firearms to be weapons which may not fall within the statutory definition of a ‘firearm’, but which nevertheless require ‘special authorisation’ and should only be carried by specially trained officers.

Risks and Dangers of Police Taser Deployment

Use of taser weapons by the Police are at all times subject to the tests of reasonableness and proportionality which govern all deployments of force, in accordance with the Police “National Decision Model” (NDM). Proportionality is a very significant factor here, given the risks posed by these “less lethal weapons”, and which include in Police training materials the following –

• Head injuries from unsupported falls

• Use of taser on people who are running

• Injuries from taser-induced falls

• Cardiac damage

• Respiratory harm, including positional asphyxia

• Triggering of epileptic seizures.

Shot in the Back: Taser Use Against a Fleeing Suspect

Police Officers playing ‘cops and robbers’ and shooting people in the back with their taser weapons is sadly nothing new in my experience. As well as the tragic case which caught the headlines last month, you can read here about another similar case which was handled by my colleague Aidan Walley.

Tasering a Man at Height: A Recipe for Catastrophic Injury

It was in that context, that Dimitri attempted to climb over a metal gate, approximately 6 feet high. Using a yellow grit box to give himself elevation, Dimitri began clambering over the top of the gate. As he did so, he suddenly felt a spasm of agonising electrical pain throughout his whole body, lost control of his arms and legs and fell helplessly to the ground on the other side of the gate, losing consciousness on impact.

Broken Back, Hospitalisation and Police Custody

Dimitri now knows that what had happened was that he had been tasered by PC McClintock, who in his desperation to apprehend my client for an unspecified offence – but one which seems to, in essence, to have been ‘disrespecting’ PC Butler – the Officer had risked either killing him or inflicting catastrophic injuries.   

As it happened, Dimitri’s outcome was a far luckier one than that of the man with whose story we began this blog – but that, of course, was no thanks to PC McClintock whose actions were in fact just as reckless as those of PC Newman. Once a person has been tasered neither the Officer nor the person themselves has any control over how they fall, or what they might hit on the way down. 

Tasers must only be used proportionately – but time and time again, as I have shown in the many such cases that I have won for clients who are the victims of Police taser misuse, they are used not proportionately to deal with severe threats or apprehend the most serious criminals, but rather out of some combination of anger, laziness, error, or authoritarianism.   

When Dimitri regained consciousness, he found that his clothing had been removed and he was wearing a hospital gown.  He was immediately aware of an intense pain and discomfort in his lower back and could not feel his legs…he was terrified he was paralysed.  He also had multiple other aches and bruises, less severe, to other parts of his body.  A doctor informed Dimitri that he had suffered three fractured lumbar vertebrae in his back.  

Regrettably, Dimitri did not just have medical staff at his bedside; also present were two Police Officers who informed him that he was now going to be taken to the Police Station. To his relief, Dimitri found that he could move his toes, but he still had no sensation in his legs and was in a lot of pain. Nevertheless, the Police Officers began to ‘help’ him out of the bed.  He got the impression that the Police had pressured the hospital staff to discharge him early.   

After initially collapsing back onto the bed, Dimitri was again ‘helped’ to his feet and then escorted out of the hospital to a Police car, suffering further intense pain in his back as he had to bend down to get into the car.  He remained dressed only in his hospital gown, making him feel exposed and half naked.   

A more literal example of adding insult and humiliation to injury, it would be hard to imagine.   

On arrival at Central Nottingham Police Station, Dimitri was led before the Custody Sergeant, in great pain and discomfort, asking himself “What did I do to deserve this?” 

Only one of the emergency services, the NHS, should have been attending upon Dimitri that night, and I consider it to be travesty that he had been ripped out of his hospital bed in order to be processed on the Police Custody conveyor belt and then incarcerated in a cell in the state that he was in.  

Dimitri was told that he was under arrest for a Section 5 public order offence.  He denied any wrongdoing and requested to be allowed to speak to a solicitor. He was then carried by Officers and put into a cell as he was unable to walk properly – lest we forget, not because of any alcohol he had consumed that night, but because the Police had fractured his back.

Whilst in his cell, Dimitri continued to be tormented by the pain in his back and the shock and confusion of everything that had happened to him.  He felt nauseous, faint and clammy and his vision was blurred.  He asked to see a doctor, but was first taken to an interview room to see the duty solicitor.  

He also made it clear that he wanted to register an official complaint about what had been done to him.   

Dimitri was now told that he was going to be charged with both a public order offence and resisting arrest.  He felt that this was because he had had the temerity to complain.  

Finally, he was seen by a nurse who deemed him unfit for Custody, issued him with painkillers and advised that he should be returned to A&E for further assessment.  

Accordingly, Dimitri was now driven back to Nottingham Hospital – in a Police van not an ambulance – where the Officer collected a wheelchair, wheeled Dimitri back into A&E and abandoned him there, along with the clothes he had been wearing the night before – most of which had been damaged as they had been cut off Dimitri by medical staff attending upon him whilst he was still unconscious.  One of his friends came to collect him from the hospital later that day, following his official discharge.  

For months afterwards. Dimitri was unable to work or to exercise, and required considerable personal care and help around the home with the ordinary tasks of day-to-day living, most of this care provided by his ex-partner who let him move back in with her given the terrible state that he was initially in.

Thankfully, after 3-4 months, Dimitri was able to return to work and by the Spring of the following year, 2022, he had returned to running and exercising in the gym, and was feeling around 80% better.

What turned out, therefore, to be relatively minor spinal fractures, from which Dimitri was able to eventually make a good recovery, was purely a matter of good fortune; PC McClintock’s gross recklessness in tasering Dimitri as he was climbing could easily have cost him the use of his legs – if not worse.

Criminal Charges Collapse as CPS Discontinues Prosecution

As for the criminal charges which Dimitri had faced – and which PC McClintock had apparently thought it was worthwhile death, brain damage or paralysis to apprehend Dimitri for – they very rapidly vanished in a puff of smoke.  Dimitri had pleaded not guilty at Nottingham Magistrates Court in late July 2021, and then just over a month later, in September 2021, was advised that the CPS had discontinued the prosecution (on both charges). 

Police Complaints Process: Institutional Bias and Lost Evidence

 Just as it is very difficult for the victims of Police taser misuse to achieve justice in the criminal courts, so it is to achieve justice through the Police complaints system; both being presumptively hostile environments for those who allege Police brutality.    

The investigation by Nottinghamshire Police Professional Standards Department showcased many of the ‘usual suspects’ of a Police complaint enquiry – 

• No adverse inferences were drawn from the failure of any of the officers to turn on their body cameras until after Dimitri had been tasered.    
• The accounts of the officers were given preferential treatment, whilst Dimitri’s was confined to an unsigned statement taken from him whilst he was still in custody, in considerable pain and discomfort and under the effects of heavy painkilling medication; no attempt had been made to take a fuller statement from him when he was better, or to properly explore and understand his perspective. This is reflective of an unpalatable truth, but one I have had to write about on so many occasions: those who complain to the Police about other members of the public are treated as victims, whilst those who complain to the Police about other Police officers, are treated as vandals.  
• The complaint investigation relied upon key pieces of evidence which the Force subsequently managed to lose, such that they were not available to be used in evidence in Dimitri’s civil claim: Custody CCTV footage, some body camera footage filmed after Dimitri’s tasering, email correspondence and the photographs of Dimitri’s injuries taken whilst he was in Custody.  

My client found that catalogue of errors by the Police to be astonishing; I found it to be appalling, but at the same time, almost to be expected.  

No particular criticism was levelled at the main culprit, PC McClintock despite what I would describe as misleading inaccuracies and mendacious omissions from his statement of events, most glaringly the fact that he failed to reference the fact that Dimitri was 6 feet off the ground, on top of a gate, when McClintock “red- dotted” and shot him with the taser – instead presenting an account which made it seem as though Dimitri was at ground level whilst tasered.

The complaint investigation was concluded in November 2021 and reached the following key findings –  

• PC McClintock’s use of the taser upon Dimitri was conceded to be “not acceptable” as being “not in line with training and best practice”. 
• Dimitri’s arrest for a public order offence was deemed “not unlawful” but it was conceded, in similar mealy- mouthed middle-management fashion that “it may have been possible to progress that investigation without the need to detain you in custody.” 
• An apology was also offered for PC Wilde’s admitted use of the word “boy” towards Dimitri, although it was argued that the Officer did not intend a “racist connotation.”  

The overall conclusion was as follows – 

“On behalf of Nottinghamshire Police, I would like to apologise for the manner in which you sustained your injury. Nottinghamshire Police do take pride in providing a quality service to the public. Whilst the Officers were responding to the events outside the bar, they have clearly not provided you with the quality of service we expect.” 

Or, I might add, the public deserve.  

But what were the consequences of these findings? Nothing of any significance. The whole matter was treated as if it were a workplace appraisal rather than an investigation into a misuse of power and weapons, a brutal assault that (literally) broke a man’s back.

“Sorry, Not Sorry”: Police Apologies Without Accountability

East Midlands Police Legal Services, representing Nottinghamshire Police, were even more obstructive and antagonistic in their approach – they thought they could deny liability outright, and in all aspects, notwithstanding the findings of their complaint department. They argued not only that Dimitri’s arrest was lawful, but that PC McClintock’s use of the taser was reasonable and proportionate, contending that –  

• “Opinions and conclusions of a complaint and disciplinary investigation are immaterial to the question of civil liability. Such an investigation relates to different issues, for a different purpose and subject to a different legal framework.” 
• “In the context of police complaints, the Defendant maintains her apology to the Claimant. That should not be undermined by denial of liability in the context of civil litigation.”  

That latter comment is an absolutely classic example of trying to have your cake and eat it – and also why Police apologies generally aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, especially in the context of a complaint.  

The former comment is also an interesting illustration of how when it suits the Police to say that complaints and claims are inextricably linked, and that therefore a claim response should be delayed pending the complaint investigation, they will do so – but that when it doesn’t, they will argue the exact opposite: reinforcing the conclusion of my recent blog post about whether claims can be brought whilst complaints are ongoing.  

In terms of excusing the taser use, the Police in their Defence contended that –  

• Dimitri “had already shown himself to be violent towards officers” (Despite the fact that he was notably not arrested for assaulting a police constable). 
• PC McClintock was “scared for his own safety” (Despite the fact that he was the pursuer, and his ‘quarry’ was actively trying to put a metal gate in between the two of them).  
• “The officers gave him ample opportunity to walk away…He failed to do so and ran from the scene.” (Which would seem to be something of a non- sequitur).  
• It was concerning that “the Claimant would go to such lengths to escape a relatively minor incident.”

Civil Action Against Nottinghamshire Police. How I Helped My Client Turn a Half-Hearted Apology into a £30K Settlement

Surely a ‘minor incident’ – in the Police’s own words – could not justify tasering somebody in such a vulnerable position as Dimitri, could it? Yet that was what the Police sought to argue, fighting the civil proceedings which I brought against them on behalf of Dimitri almost all the way to trial.  

As far as Dimitri was concerned PCs Butler, Wilde & McClintock had not been behaving like officers, but members of a street gang. He had fled from them out a genuine concern for his safety, in the face of their totally unnecessary aggression, and they had only doubled- down on this by hunting him down, and, to all intents and purposes, throwing him off a wall. Police failures to de- escalate and respond with professional proportionality rather than egotism and emotion are what leads to so many similar situations in my experience, from those resulting in relatively minor but still avoidable injuries to the tragic or near- tragic such as this.  

Dimitri did not accept that he had been committing any “public order” offences and I very much agreed with him. Therefore, after giving him access to justice via a “no win, no fee” agreement, I helped him to present a litigated claim which was not just confined to his injuries.

We sued the Police on multiple fronts –  

• For assault and battery 
• For false imprisonment (aka wrongful arrest) 
• For malicious prosecution (aka bringing the initial charges as a “smokescreen” designed to hide the actual wrongdoing of the officers, and in particular PC McClintock).  

So, the claim was not just about brutality and physical injury, but deprivation of a law-abiding citizen’s liberty and active Police malice, an attempt at criminalising an innocent person in order to deflect from Police wrongdoing. Bringing the claim on such a broad front would entitle Dimitri to significantly higher damages than it would have done if confined to the ‘bones and bruises’ of personal injury only, and I had the confidence to know that the findings of a civil court were likely to go much further than the admissions of the Police complaint system.

£30,000 Damages for Police Taser Misuse and Malicious Prosecution

After all statements of case, evidential disclosure, expert evidence and witness statements had been served and finalised, with the case listed for a 6 day trial at Nottingham County Court commencing 23 February 2026, the Police and their solicitors caved in on 5 January 2026 and accepted Dimitri’s offer – made over a year earlier – to settle his claim for £30,000 damages. In addition, they will pay the legal costs incurred in this 5-year battle for justice.

Final Thoughts: Police Taser Misuse and the Fight for Accountability

I was very proud to represent Dimitri, and he wrote the following in his 5 star review of my services afterwards: 

“From the very beginning, Iain was professional, knowledgeable and approachable. He took the time to clearly explain the legal process, kept me informed throughout, and showed genuine care and commitment to my case. During an extremely stressful and difficult period in my life, Iain’s support, expertise and reassurance gave me real confidence. I would not hesitate to recommend Iain Gould to anyone who needs strong, reliable and dedicated legal representation.”

–  iaingould.co.uk reviewed by Dimitri Moses on 20/01/2026

Thank you for that review, Dimitri. One thing, however, is for certain – Dimitri will not be the last victim of almost criminally-reckless use of taser weapons by the Police, as ever-increasing numbers of officers are authorised to carry them. Until the day that Police vetting, training and decision making is what it should be, I will be here to help those who have suffered from their violence.

How you can help

Week after week, I post on this blog, in order to share my knowledge and experience so that people can better understand their rights and options. If this blog has helped you, or if you believe in the general importance of holding the police to account, please take a moment to leave a 5 star review. Your review is more than just feedback – it is a way to guide others towards expert representation when they need it most. Thank you!

Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor

Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.