This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/04/elderly-black-man-who-was-punched-by-police-officer-wins-judicial-review

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Elderly black man who was punched by police officer wins judicial review Elderly black man who was punched by police officer wins judicial review
(32 minutes later)
Independent Office for Police Conduct’s finding that officer had no case to answer overturned in high courtIndependent Office for Police Conduct’s finding that officer had no case to answer overturned in high court
The high court has overturned a decision by the police watchdog that an officer who punched an elderly black man in the face had no case to answer.The high court has overturned a decision by the police watchdog that an officer who punched an elderly black man in the face had no case to answer.
Errol Dixon, 71, sustained a broken nose, displaced septum and fractured a cheekbone and an eye socket in the incident in south-east London in September 2021. He was stopped in his car by police officers in Bromley and the primary officer held Dixon round the neck and punched him in the face.Errol Dixon, 71, sustained a broken nose, displaced septum and fractured a cheekbone and an eye socket in the incident in south-east London in September 2021. He was stopped in his car by police officers in Bromley and the primary officer held Dixon round the neck and punched him in the face.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) held an independent investigation and concluded in November that no officer had a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct.The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) held an independent investigation and concluded in November that no officer had a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct.
The IOPC stated at the time they had found the primary officer had acted in self-defence and the force used had been reasonable.The IOPC stated at the time they had found the primary officer had acted in self-defence and the force used had been reasonable.
Dixon applied to the high court in February to challenge the outcome, arguing that the watchdog’s decision-maker had misapplied the correct legal test and that a misconduct panel could find that the officer had used disproportionate force and had been dishonest about the events.Dixon applied to the high court in February to challenge the outcome, arguing that the watchdog’s decision-maker had misapplied the correct legal test and that a misconduct panel could find that the officer had used disproportionate force and had been dishonest about the events.
He also argued that the decision that the officers had no case to answer for misconduct had been irrational, and that the IOPC had failed to properly apply the law in relation to race discrimination.He also argued that the decision that the officers had no case to answer for misconduct had been irrational, and that the IOPC had failed to properly apply the law in relation to race discrimination.
The IOPC accepted the decision-maker had applied the incorrect legal test but maintained that the decision was lawful and that therefore permission should be refused.The IOPC accepted the decision-maker had applied the incorrect legal test but maintained that the decision was lawful and that therefore permission should be refused.
In April, a judge granted permission to Dixon to challenge the decision by way of judicial review, with the IOPC subsequently conceding that their original decision was unlawful.In April, a judge granted permission to Dixon to challenge the decision by way of judicial review, with the IOPC subsequently conceding that their original decision was unlawful.
The administrative court has now quashed the IOPC’s original decision and a new decision-maker with no previous involvement will consider the case.The administrative court has now quashed the IOPC’s original decision and a new decision-maker with no previous involvement will consider the case.
Dixon, who was represented by Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, said: “I was shocked and disappointed by the first decision of the IOPC that the force used by [the officer], who throttled me and punched me directly in the face, could not amount to misconduct.Dixon, who was represented by Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, said: “I was shocked and disappointed by the first decision of the IOPC that the force used by [the officer], who throttled me and punched me directly in the face, could not amount to misconduct.
“I still believe that [the officer] used excessive force upon me because I am a black man and that if I was an elderly white man I would have been treated very differently.“I still believe that [the officer] used excessive force upon me because I am a black man and that if I was an elderly white man I would have been treated very differently.
“I am very pleased that the high court has struck down the first IOPC decision.“I am very pleased that the high court has struck down the first IOPC decision.
“I can only hope that the IOPC will now uphold my complaint so that [the officer] can face justice at an independent police tribunal.”“I can only hope that the IOPC will now uphold my complaint so that [the officer] can face justice at an independent police tribunal.”
The IOPC were unavailable for comment.