Taser ‘attack’ left man paralysed from chest down

A Met Police officer left a man paralysed from the chest down after zapping him with his Taser, a court heard.

Jordan Walker-Brown suffered ‘permanent and complete paraplegia’ after he fell from a wall
onto his head in Finsbury Park, north London, on 4 May 2020.

PC Imran Mahmood, 36, was in a marked police van with eight colleagues when he saw Mr Walker-Brown walking along the pavement.

Mahmood decided to speak to Walker-Brown and opened the side door of the van.

Mr Walker-Brown ran down Burgoyne Road and climbed onto a wheelie bin, to get over a wall, when the officer fired his taser at him, Southwark Crown Court.

He fell ‘vertically onto his head’ onto the path on the other side of the wall, breaking his back and he was left paralysed from the chest down.

Mahmood, who was part of the Territorial Support Group (TSG) patrolling the Haringey area,
denies inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Prosecutor Ben Fitzgerald, KC, told jurors: ‘It happened at around 11.30am on a Monday morning, in the early months of the lockdown caused by the coronavirus.

‘There is no dispute that Mr Mahmood inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Mr Walker Brown.

‘He did so by discharging his taser, a device that fires metal barbs at a subject and delivers a strong electric current, against Mr Walker-Brown.

‘As a result of being tasered, Mr Walker-Brown fell from a height onto his head. The impact broke his back, resulting in permanent and complete paraplegia, that is, permanent paralysis of the legs and lower body.

‘The defence case is that he was acting lawfully when he discharged the taser, because – acting in his role as a police officer – he did no more than use reasonable force to defend himself or others from violence from Mr Walker-Brown.

‘The prosecution case is that Mr Mahmood’s actions were unlawful: Mr Mahmood was not acting in order to defend himself or anyone else, and the use of the taser was not a reasonable use of force in the circumstances.

Mahmood was on duty as part of a uniformed police unit, in a marked police van, patrolling the Haringey area.

‘There were nine officers in the van, including the driver. Mr Mahmood was one of those in the back.

‘At around 11.30am, as the van turned into a residential street called Burgoyne Road, Mr Mahmood’s attention was drawn to Jordan Walker-Brown, who was walking along the pavement.

‘Having decided to speak to Mr Walker-Brown, Mr Mahmood opened the side door of the van, at which point Mr Walker-Brown immediately started to run away down Burgoyne Road.

Mr Mahmood and another officer gave chase on foot, each drawing his taser as he ran. The van also followed.

‘A short way down Burgoyne Road, Mr Walker-Brown entered the front yard area of one of the houses and – the prosecution say – tried to get away over the side wall of the yard.

‘On the other side of that wall was a footpath running alongside the New River.

‘Mr Walker-Brown climbed first onto wheelie bins that were left up against the wall.

‘As Mr Walker-Brown was about to breach the wall, Mr Mahmood fired his taser. The barbs struck Mr Walker-Brown and the electric current was discharged.

‘As a result of the electric shock, as Mr Walker-Brown travelled over the wall he was unable to break his fall and fell vertically onto his head on the footpath on the other side, causing the fracture to his back.

‘The training that Mr Mahmood had received in the use of the taser meant that he knew that it worked by discharging a high voltage of electricity, causing intense pain and incapacitating the subject by making them unable to control the muscles in their body.

‘He was trained that a particular risk involved in the use of the taser is of injury to the subject from falling unsupported, because the subject cannot control their fall when incapacitated.’

Mr Fitzgerald said the officer was trained specifically that subjects who are ‘at height’ are vulnerable in the event of an uncontrolled fall.

He told jurors: ‘You may think it is no more than common sense that a person who falls from a height is more likely to be injured than someone who is already on the ground.

‘Given the risks involved, Mr Mahmood was trained that the taser should not be used purely because a subject is making off.

‘The risks involved, of which Mr Mahmood was well aware, are important to your assessment of whether his discharge of the taser constituted a reasonable use of force. No doubt a taser can be an extremely useful policing tool, if used in appropriate circumstances. But the training exists because the tool must be used responsibly.

‘The discharge of a taser constitutes a significant use of force, which carries obvious risks.’

Mahmood provided a statement, claiming he discharged the taser against Mr Walker-Brown because he believed, at the time he climbed onto the wheelie bin, he ‘was about to attack him and anyone else that was attempting to stop him’.

He claimed he thought that Mr Walker-Brown posed an ‘imminent threat’ to his safety.

Mr Fitzgerld said this explanation was not true.

‘Mr Mahmood did not discharge the taser in self-defence or in defence of another person. Mr Walker Brown did not present a physical threat to Mr Mahmood or anyone else.

‘He did not produce a weapon or try to attack anyone; he was trying to get away. Mr Mahmood fired the taser at the moment when it looked as if Mr Walker-Brown might get away over the wall.

‘He discharged the taser when Mr Walker-Brown was up on the wheelie bin, with the obvious risk of injury from an uncontrolled fall, which is exactly what happened, with catastrophic results. Mr Mahmood should not have used the taser. It was not, the prosecution say, a reasonable use of force in the circumstances he faced. It was not lawful.’

Mahmood, of Newham, east London, denies inflicting grievous bodily harm.
mfl

ends