Man loses case against Essex Police after being shot and tasered twice during arrest
Mr Jones sustained a dislocated shoulder from the incident
A man who had been wielding a large blade before being shot with a non-lethal baton round and later tasered twice by police officers has lost his bid to sue Essex Police after claiming the force used against him was “grossly disproportionate”.
Essex Police had been called at around 3am on July 30, 2021, to Northbrooks in Harlow after reports that Anthony Jones was said to have been behaving aggressively, shouting, making threats to kill and wielding a large knife in a residential garden. The reports include references to Mr Jones as “having a big blade in his hand”, and he was “shouting about killing people”.
Police officers discharged a ‘less-lethal’ rubber baton round, and two tasers at him during the arrest, and officers also admitted to striking him in the left arm three times and once in the abdomen during the struggle. Mr Jones sustained a dislocated shoulder from the incident and has since suffered from chronic impairment of shoulder function and moderate post-traumatic stress disorder.
Mr Jones was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to a public order offence at Chelmsford Crown Court, where he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment.
He had initial success in his bid to sue the force for damages in 2024, but the force has now won a bid to have the order set aside – effectively voiding it. In a hearing on November 4, 2025, Anthony Metzer KC, for the claimant, submits that he was in his garden and in a state of “distress and disorientation” following a relapse into drugs and alcohol. He describes the officers as arriving “en masse” and that Mr Jones was unarmed when 11 officers approached him aggressively, shouting overlapping commands, with the claimant given no opportunity to comply.
He said the officers failed to attempt to de-escalate the situation before subjecting the claimant to “violent restraint”. However, the judge, Master Armstrong of The King’s Bench Division, has said upon review of the evidence that he is satisfied that the evidence as presented to the court at the first application was neither “full nor frank”.
The hearing also heard the officers identify themselves as being armed and instructing the claimant to remain still, get down on his knees, and lie on the grass. However, they saw him attempting to climb the fence and, believing he was trying to flee, discharged the baton round. This was described as having little effect and was immediately followed by the discharge of a taser, which also caused little reaction.
Further orders are ignored by Mr Jones, who is reported to have tried to mount the fence, at which point a second taser is discharged.
One officer describes punching him in the muscle mass of his upper arm after the claimant “dug his nails” into the officer’s wrist. Another officer describes delivering strikes to the claimant’s right side in an attempt to stop the claimant from kicking him.
In his judgement, Master Armstrong said he “appeared to be in a state of delirium, and was seemingly acting under the influence of drugs and alcohol, or having a mental health breakdown”. He described the situation as “inherently dangerous”.
In his judgement, he said: “With these circumstances, I ask myself, has the claimant a real prospect of success? Is this case more than fanciful? Does it carry the weight of some degree of conviction? Do these circumstances merit further investigation? Is there any more evidence that can be expected to become available that will influence the outcome?
“In short, the answer is clearly “no”. No reasonable and objective person faced with this scenario could conclude that the force used was disproportionate, and if that threshold cannot be met, then clearly the claimant has no realistic prospect of satisfying a court that the force used was more than serious or grossly disproportionate.”