Excessive Force by Police: What Counts as Assault or Battery in a Civil Claim?

When a police officer uses force against you that was unnecessary, disproportionate, or that continued beyond the point at which any justification for it had passed, that conduct can amount to the civil wrongs of assault and battery. These are not only criminal concepts: they are established causes of action in civil law that allow you to claim compensation against the relevant police force, regardless of whether any criminal charge was ever brought against the officer concerned.

Assault and Battery: What Do These Terms Mean in Civil Law?

In everyday language, assault and battery are often used interchangeably, but in law they describe two distinct wrongs.

Battery is the direct application of unlawful physical force to another person. In the context of a police claim, it covers any unconsented physical contact that was not justified by a lawful exercise of police powers. Grabbing, striking, restraining, deploying a Taser, using a baton or CS spray, applying handcuffs, or setting a police dog on a person can all constitute battery where the force was not lawfully justified.

Assault in the civil sense is an act that causes a person to reasonably apprehend that immediate unlawful force is about to be applied to them. It covers threats or conduct that put you in fear of imminent physical contact, even if no contact actually occurs. In police cases, assault and battery commonly arise together, since the threat and the application of force often form part of the same incident.

Both wrongs are actionable without proof of financial loss. The unlawful touching or the reasonable apprehension of it is itself the basis of the claim, with compensation reflecting the nature, severity, and consequences of what occurred.

When Is Police Use of Force Lawful?

Understanding when force is unlawful requires understanding first when it is permitted. Police officers are not prohibited from using force. They are given specific statutory authority to do so in defined circumstances, and within those circumstances a degree of physical contact that would otherwise be actionable is justified.

The principal statutory authorities are:

Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which permits an officer exercising any power under PACE to use reasonable force if necessary. This covers force used in the course of arrest, search, and detention.

Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders. This is the broader common law power available to all citizens, including police officers, and extends beyond the specific PACE context.

Common law self-defence and defence of others, which allows an officer to use reasonable force to protect themselves or another person from attack.

These powers sound wide but they are not unlimited. Each carries an overriding requirement: the force must be reasonable in the circumstances. Where force goes beyond what is reasonable, the statutory authority falls away and the conduct becomes an unlawful battery.

The Three-Stage Legal Test for Lawful Force

When a civil claim for battery arising from police force is brought, the court applies a three-stage test to determine whether the force was justified. All three stages must be satisfied for the force to be lawful. If the police cannot satisfy any one of them, the claim succeeds in respect of the conduct that failed the test.

Stage one: did the officer honestly believe that force was necessary?

This is a subjective question about the officer’s actual state of mind at the moment force was used. An officer who genuinely believed no force was needed, or who knew the person posed no threat, cannot rely on this stage. An honest belief is required, not a convenient retrospective justification constructed after the event.

Stage two: was that belief objectively reasonable?

Even where an officer honestly believed force was necessary, that belief must have been objectively reasonable. A court will ask whether a reasonable officer, with the same information and in the same circumstances, would have shared that belief. An honest but unreasonable belief does not justify the use of force. This stage is where many disputed cases are determined.

Stage three: was the force actually used proportionate to the threat as the officer perceived it?

Even where an officer honestly and reasonably believed force was necessary, the amount of force actually deployed must be proportionate. Overwhelming a compliant person, continuing to use force after a threat has passed, or using a high-level force option where a lower level would have been adequate can all fail this stage even where the earlier stages are satisfied.

This three-stage framework was applied and reinforced by the Court of Appeal in Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London [2024] EWCA Civ 1269, where the court reversed a High Court finding that the use of a Taser had been lawful. The Court of Appeal found that while the officer’s belief in the need to use some force was honest, the decision to deploy a Taser was not objectively reasonable or proportionate in the circumstances, particularly given that the officer was not forced into a split-second decision and that the Taser was used as a compliance tool rather than in response to a genuine and immediate threat.

Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

This is one of the most significant features of civil battery claims against the police and one that is widely misunderstood. In bringing a civil claim for assault or battery against the police, once the claimant has established that force was used, the burden falls on the defendant police force to prove that the force was lawful. This is the reverse of the usual position in civil litigation where the claimant must prove their case throughout.

In practice, the police must demonstrate that the officer honestly believed force was necessary, that the belief was objectively reasonable, and that the force used was proportionate. If they cannot satisfy all three elements of the test, the claim succeeds for the period or conduct that failed it.

This does not make these cases straightforward. Police forces will typically rely on the accounts of the officers involved, body-worn video footage, use of force records, and in complex cases expert evidence on police training and force options. The quality of the claimant’s evidence matters enormously.

Common Forms of Excessive Force in Police Claims

Disproportionate force during arrest

An officer may use reasonable force to effect an arrest, but the force must match the resistance offered and the risk presented. Striking a person who is not resisting, using force against someone who is already restrained, or continuing physical contact after a person has been brought under control will rarely be justified.

Handcuffing injuries and prolonged use of handcuffs

Handcuffs are a routine piece of police equipment, but their use must be individually justified and monitored. Where handcuffs are applied without grounds for believing they are necessary, applied too tightly, or left on for longer than the circumstances require, any injury caused may give rise to a battery claim. Where handcuffs are applied during a period of unlawful detention, their continued use during that unlawful period is itself an unlawful battery, as confirmed in Fulton v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police (County Court at Liverpool, M80LV017, 27 April 2026).

Taser deployment

Following Afriyie [2024] EWCA Civ 1269, the legal scrutiny applied to Taser use is demanding. A Taser is a prohibited firearm in law and its deployment requires justification commensurate with that classification. Using a Taser as a means of obtaining compliance where the person does not represent an immediate and serious threat, or where a lower level of force would have been adequate, is likely to fail the proportionality test.

CS spray and PAVA incapacitant spray

The same three-stage test applies to incapacitant sprays. Deployment against a person who is compliant, who poses no genuine threat, or who is already restrained is difficult to justify. Deployment in enclosed spaces or against vulnerable individuals without proper consideration of the risks involved may also exceed what the circumstances required.

Baton strikes

Baton strikes are a significant use of force and must be proportionate to the threat presented. Strikes to the head are generally considered high-risk and are contrary to police training guidelines except in the most serious circumstances. Where strikes are used against a person who poses no threat, or in a manner contrary to College of Policing guidance, a claim for battery is likely to arise.

Police dog deployments

The use of a police dog as a force option must be proportionate and the dog must be under adequate control. Where a deployment results in injury that was avoidable, or where the dog was used in circumstances where the level of force was disproportionate to the threat, a claim arises. The handler is responsible for the actions of the dog, and the force is vicariously liable.

Restraint techniques

The use of physical restraint, particularly prone restraint where a person is held face down on the ground, has been subject to increasing legal scrutiny following a number of deaths associated with its use. Where a restraint technique is applied for longer than is necessary, in a manner inconsistent with the officer’s training, or without proper monitoring of the restrained person’s condition, claims for battery and, in the most serious cases, negligence and breach of human rights can arise.

Force in custody

An officer’s authority to use force does not end at the custody suite door. Force used within custody, whether during a search, during a transfer of the detained person, or in response to behaviour within a cell, is subject to exactly the same legal test. Any force that was unnecessary or disproportionate in a custody context is as actionable as force used on the street.

The Role of Body-Worn Video

Body-worn video has transformed civil claims against the police for excessive force. It provides contemporaneous, objective evidence of what occurred during an incident, often capturing detail that neither party’s oral account would reliably reproduce.

In cases involving disputed force, body-worn video may show the precise sequence of events, the level of resistance offered by the claimant, the degree of force used, and whether the officer appeared to be responding to a genuine threat or acting beyond what the situation required. In Fulton, the court drew significant adverse inferences from the officer’s apparent attempt to switch off their body-worn camera before the relevant conduct began, and the footage that was inadvertently captured proved central to the findings made.

Body-worn video must be requested formally and in writing as soon as possible after an incident. Police forces are not obliged to retain footage indefinitely, and delay risks material being overwritten. A written request for preservation and disclosure should be made within days of the incident, not weeks.

What Happens When Force Is Used During Unlawful Detention?

Where force is used during a period of detention that is itself unlawful, the force is unlawful for that reason, regardless of the three-stage test. This is because a lawful exercise of police powers is a precondition of the authority to use force. Where the detention is unlawful, the officer has no power to detain the person and therefore no authority to use force to do so.

In Fulton, the court confirmed that the continued use of handcuffs during the period of unlawful detention amounted to assault and battery, notwithstanding that the initial application of handcuffs had been reasonable. The unlawfulness of the detention infected the lawfulness of the force used during it.

What Compensation Is Available?

Compensation in a civil battery claim against the police is assessed across several heads.

General damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity arising from any physical injury caused by the force. The Judicial College Guidelines, now in their 18th edition published in April 2026, provide brackets for physical injuries of varying types and severities that courts and practitioners use as reference points.

General damages for psychological harm where the use of force has caused a recognised psychiatric condition such as post-traumatic stress disorder or a depressive disorder.

General damages for loss of liberty where the force was used during a period of unlawful detention, compensating for the unlawful deprivation of freedom as well as the force itself.

Special damages for quantifiable financial losses, including lost earnings during any period of incapacity caused by the injury, medical expenses, and any other out-of-pocket costs.

Aggravated damages where the manner of the force was particularly oppressive, humiliating, or deliberately excessive, aggravating the impact beyond the physical injury alone.

Exemplary damages in the most serious cases of outrageous or deliberate abuse of police power, where the court considers that compensation alone is insufficient to mark its condemnation of the conduct and to deter repetition.

What to Do If You Were Subjected to Excessive Force

1. Seek medical attention immediately for any injury, however minor it appears. Injuries should be clinically documented as soon as possible and photographs taken at the time and in the days following as bruising develops.
2. Write down everything you can remember while it is fresh: the time and location, which officers were involved, the sequence of events, exactly what force was used and in what circumstances, and what you said or did before, during, and after.
3. Request body-worn video footage in writing from the force as soon as possible, citing the date, time, location, and officers involved where known.
4. Preserve all other footage from your own phone, dashcam, doorbell cameras, and any CCTV you can identify in the area.
5. Note any independent witnesses who observed the incident and obtain their contact details.
6. Contact a specialist solicitor promptly, particularly where a Human Rights Act claim may also arise, since the 1-year limitation period for those claims begins to run from the date of the breach.

Satchell Moran Solicitors handles civil claims for excessive force against the police across England and Wales on a no-win, no-fee basis, and, where clients meet the eligibility criteria, through legal aid. As a firm with dual Lexcel accreditation and over 30 specialist solicitors, we assess each case individually, advise on the realistic prospects, and only pursue claims we genuinely believe have merit. If you were subjected to force that was unnecessary or disproportionate, contact us for a free initial consultation.