The City of London Police intend to appeal against a court ruling requiring it to pay £24,000 in compensation to a social worker who was Tasered by one of its officers.

Edwin Afriyie, 37, said he suffered head, back and leg injuries after falling backwards to the ground and hitting his head on a stone ledge on King William Street in April 2018.

Last year, a High Court judgment concluded that the use of the Taser had been reasonable in the circumstances. But on October 25, the Court of Appeal ruled that it was not “objectively reasonable” and damages should be awarded.

The City of London Police lodged an appeal application on October 31, stating that the sentence was “likely to have a chilling effect on frontline police officers”.

In its appeal application, the force said the sentence “threatens the lawful and effective use of Tasers by police in circumstances where they fear imminent violence against themselves or others”.

He argued that the Court of Appeal ignored the High Court judge’s finding that the police officer had used the Taser for fear that Mr Afriyie would “aggressively resist or attack the officers”.

Police stopped Mr Afriyie on suspicion of speeding and he was eventually detained for failing to provide a breath sample.

He was charged with failing to provide a sample for analysis, but was not convicted of the driving offence.

Afriyie said he was “deeply disappointed” that the City of London Police had decided to appeal.

“This decision demonstrates a worrying lack of accountability and continued misuse of public funds, which has already amounted to approximately £500,000 of taxpayers’ money just to bring the case to this point,” he said.

“Beyond the financial implications, this appeal is prolonging the emotional toll on me and my loved ones, denying us closure after what has been an incredibly traumatic experience.”

The High Court heard Mr Afriyie was standing with his arms crossed while talking to a friend while being Tasered.

Judge Hill found that the use of the firearm was reasonable under the circumstances.

But in a Court of Appeal ruling, Mr Justice Davis, sitting with Chief Justice Baroness Carr and Mr Justice Dingemans, said: “A proper objective analysis of whether the use of a weapon classified as a firearm was reasonable would have led the judge to conclude that it was not.

“His conclusion that further negotiation would have been futile did not amount to the necessary analysis of the objective reasonableness of the nature and degree of force used.”