Police Use of
Force Rules Explained
The definitive authority guide to the legal standards of Necessity, Proportionality, and Accountability in UK policing (2026 Edition).
Authority Summary
In England and Wales, police officers may use force only when it is lawful, necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in the circumstances. The legal basis derives from Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, common law self-defence principles, and the Human Rights Act 1998. Any force must be justified objectively and is subject to independent review.
1. The Core Legal Principle
The use of force by police officers is one of the most significant powers granted by the State. However, this power is not absolute. It is governed by a strict set of legal and ethical standards designed to balance the maintenance of public order with the fundamental rights of the individual. In the UK, the starting point for any analysis of police force is that all force must be justified.
The primary judicial guidance on the nature of "Reasonable Force" comes from the landmark case of Palmer v R [1971]. Lord Morris famously observed that a person defending themselves cannot be expected to "weigh to a nicety the exact measure of their defensive action." This recognition formed the basis of the modern "Honest Belief" test and the allowance for split-second decision-making.
For any application of force to be considered lawful, it must pass a four-pronged institutional test that aligns with the College of Policing's Code of Ethics and the National Decision Model (NDM):
Lawfulness
The force must be used to achieve a legitimate legal objective. Under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, this includes the prevention of crime or the assistance in a lawful arrest. Without a clear legal objective, any use of physical power is a trespass to the person.
Necessity
Necessity is a threshold of "last resort." Force should only be used if there is no other reasonable way (such as tactical communication or "Plan A" negotiation) to achieve the objective. If the situation can be safely resolved through dialogue, force is never necessary.
Proportionality
Proportionality involves a balancing act between the severity of the threat and the level of force applied. One cannot use a sledgehammer to crack a nut; high levels of force used for minor non-compliance are a fundamental breach of proportionality.
Accountability
Accountability requires that every officer is individually responsible for the force they use. This is monitored through Use of Force reporting, Body-Worn Video (BWV) audits, and independent oversight by the IOPC in 2026.
In the landscape of modern transparency, these principles are not merely academic—they are the benchmarks used by juries, coroners, and misconduct panels to judge an officer's actions. When these boundaries are crossed, the force becomes unlawful assault, and the officer may face criminal, civil, or disciplinary consequences regardless of their rank or intent.
2. The Legal Framework
The authority for the use of force does not come from a single statute, but from a dense layered framework of primary law, common law traditions, and modern human rights obligations. Understanding this framework is essential for any objective assessment of police conduct.
In England and Wales, the Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Armed Policing and Public Order provides the operational interpretation of these laws, but it is the following statutes and principles that form the irreducible legal minimum.
2.1 Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967
Section 3 is the "Arrest & Prevention" power. It states: "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 or of persons unlawfully at large."
This authority is significant because it grants a power based on the prevention of crime. It allows an officer to use force before a crime is completed, provided their suspicion is reasonable. The "person" in the statute technically includes any member of the public, but for police officers, it is the primary shield for operational deployments involving physical detention.
2.2 Common Law Self-Defence
Common Law self-defence is perhaps the most fundamental protection for any individual. It is not limited to "defending oneself" but extends to the defence of another and the defence of property.
The definitive test for Common Law force was established in R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987]. The court ruled that if a person uses force in self-defence based on a genuine mistake of fact, they must be judged according to that mistaken view, provided it was an honest belief. This "Subjective-Objective" hybrid test is the reason why officers are often legally protected even when their threat assessment turns out to be incorrect in hindsight.
2.3 Section 117 PACE 1984
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) provides specific authority for officers to use "reasonable force, if necessary" to exercise any power granted under the Act.
This is the power used most frequently during Stop and Search and Custody procedures. If an officer has the power to search a person under Section 1 PACE, Section 117 provides the authority to physically detain them to conduct that search. Without Section 117, every non-consensual search would technically be an assault. It is the "enabling" power that makes the rest of PACE operationally viable.
2.4 Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 requires all public authorities (including the police) to act in a way that is compatible with the ECHR. In Use of Force scenarios, Article 2 (Right to Life) and Article 3 (Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman/Degrading Treatment) are paramount.
Article 2 is not just a prohibition against killing; it is a mandate to plan operations (like armed response or dynamic entries) in a way that minimizes the risk to life. Any failure in the planning phase of a use of force operation can lead to a violation of Article 2, even if the final act of force was itself necessary.
2.5 Strategic Case Law Deep-Dive
R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987]
The "Mistaken Belief" precedent. The court held that if a person uses force because they honestly believe it is necessary in self-defence, they must be judged according to that belief, even if they were mistaken. This applies as long as the belief was honest, regardless of whether it was reasonable for them to hold it.
Palmer v R [1971]
The "Nicety of Weighing" rule. Lord Morris stated that a person in a moment of danger cannot be expected to weigh exactly how much force is needed. If the jury finds the person did what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that is most potent evidence that it was reasonable.
Beckford v R [1988]
The "Pre-emptive Strike" authority. This case established that a person does not have to wait for an assailant to strike the first blow. A pre-emptive strike can be lawful self-defence if the person honestly believes they are about to be attacked.
McCann v UK [1995] (ECHR)
The "Planning & Control" obligation. This ECHR case involving the SAS in Gibraltar established that the State's duty to protect life includes a duty to plan and control operations so as to minimize the need for lethal force.
R (W80) v Director General of the IOPC [2023]
The modern standard for "Honest Belief" in disciplinary cases. The Supreme Court clarified that in police misconduct proceedings, the test for "reasonable force" is whether the belief was objectively reasonable, even if honestly held. This creates a higher threshold for officers to avoid misconduct than to avoid criminal conviction.
3. What Is “Reasonable Force”?
The term "reasonable force" is frequently misunderstood in the public sphere. It is not a fixed mathematical formula; it is an objective test that accounts for the volatility, uncertainty, and often life-threatening nature of police work. The law does not require officers to be "right" in hindsight; it requires them to be "reasonable" in the moment.
The Definitive Definition
"Reasonable force is the minimum level of force necessary to achieve a lawful objective, judged objectively based on what the officer honestly believed at the time."
To determine if force was reasonable, the English courts and the IOPC apply a rigorous dual-layered analysis:
The Subjective Element: Honest Belief
The first question is: What did the officer honestly believe the circumstances were? If an officer honestly believed they were about to be stabbed—even if the suspect was actually reaching for a phone—the officer's actions must be judged against that belief. This protection stems from Beckford v R [1988], where the court affirmed that "a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow."
The Objective Element: Reasonable Response
The second question is: Given that honest belief, was the amount of force used reasonable? This is where proportionality is tested. If an officer correctly believes someone is committing a minor theft, using a baton strike to the head would likely be considered unreasonable, as the response is disproportionate to the harm being prevented.
The Hindsight Prohibition
Crucially, Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 codifies that a person acting for a legitimate purpose cannot be expected to have "weighed to a nicety" the exact measure of force. This "Hindsight Prohibition" is vital for officer safety, acknowledging that split-second decisions in dark alleys or violent protests cannot be compared to the calm analysis of a courtroom.
4. When Can Police Use Force?
There are specific, lawful contexts where the use of force is authorized. Outside of these contexts, any application of physical power by an officer—no matter how minor—is potentially a criminal assault or a civil battery.
To Effect a Lawful Arrest
Section 3 Criminal Law Act provides the shield here. If a suspect resists a lawful arrest, officers are empowered to use force to secure them. This can range from a compliant "guiding hold" to high-impact restraint if the suspect is violent.
Prevention of Crime
Officers can use force to prevent someone from breaching the peace, damaging property, or assaulting another person. The force must be preventive, not punitive.
Self-Defence & Defence of Others
Common law permits force to protect life and limb. An officer has a "positive obligation" under Article 2 ECHR to protect the lives of the public, which may necessitate the use of force against an attacker.
Execution of Statutory Powers
Under Section 117 PACE, force may be used to carry out searches, take fingerprints, or perform other mandatory procedures if the subject does not comply voluntarily.
The Termination Doctrine
"The authority to use force is not a permanent license. It is a temporary power that must cease the moment the lawful objective is achieved. Continued force against a person who is no longer resisting or a threat is a serious breach of police discipline."
Conducted Energy Devices (Taser)
Tasers are classified as prohibited weapons under Section 5 Firearms Act 1968. Police authority to carry them is granted by the Home Office. The legal threshold for use is "threat of violence" where a taser is considered a proportionate alternative to other forms of physical force.
Firearms
The use of firearms is the highest level of force and is governed by Article 2 ECHR. Deadly force is only lawful when it is "absolutely necessary" to protect life.
6. Human Rights Architecture
The Human Rights Act 1998 transformed the legal landscape of police force. It moved the focus from simple statutory power to a fundamental assessment of the State's positive obligations to protect its citizens. Use of force is now inextricably linked to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Article 2: The Right to Life
Article 2 is the most protected right in the convention. In policing, it applies whenever force is used that carries a real and immediate risk to life. This is not limited to firearms; it includes high-risk restraint, certain baton strikes, and the use of tasers on vulnerable subjects.
The standard for Article 2 is absolute necessity. This is a higher threshold than "reasonable force." The court in McCann v UK [1995] established that the State is responsible not only for the pull of the trigger but for the planning and control of the operation. If a police operation is managed so poorly that deadly force becomes the only option, the State may still be in violation of Article 2 even if the officer's individual actions were justified.
Article 3: Integrity
This prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Force that is used for punishment, to humiliate, or which is grossly disproportionate to the resistance offered will violate Article 3. Crucially, Article 3 is an absolute right—it cannot be balanced against public safety or national interest.
Article 8: Privacy
Any application of force, including a simple search or the taking of DNA, is an interference with a person's physical integrity and privacy under Article 8. It must therefore be "at accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society."
The Procedural Obligation
Articles 2 and 3 impose a "procedural" requirement on the UK government. Any time a person dies or is seriously injured following police contact, there must be an independent, effective, and prompt investigation. This is the legal foundation for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
7. Reporting & Oversight
Accountability in 2026 is driven by data and digital transparency. Every officer who uses force—even if it is just a "tactical hold" during a search—must record their actions through a standardized reporting cycle.
The Use of Force Record (UOFR)
This is a mandatory data entry for all UK police forces. It captures the reason for the force, the tactical options used, the subject's perceived characteristics, and any injuries sustained. This data is published annually for each force, providing a national map of how State power is applied.
Body-Worn Video (BWV) Integrity
By 2026, the absence of BWV footage during a use of force incident requires a formal explanation from the officer. Courts and misconduct panels now treat the omission of recording as a significant factor in determining the honesty of an officer's account. BWV provides the vital "third-person perspective" that stabilizes the honest belief test.
The IOPC Referral Grid
Forces have a statutory duty to refer certain incidents to the IOPC, including:
- Death following police contact
- Serious injury leading to hospitalization
- Deployment of a firearm (whether fired or not)
8. When Is Force Unlawful?
In legal terms, force is unlawful the moment it fails to meet the criteria of "reasonableness." Once the necessity for force ends, any continued application is a trespass and a criminal assault. The UK legal system recognizes three distinct layers of accountability for unlawful force.
1. Criminal Liability
If force is proven to be excessive, an officer can be prosecuted for Common Assault, Actual Bodily Harm (ABH), or Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). In the 2026 legal climate, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) applies a rigorous public interest test to such cases, but the "Honest Belief" threshold remains a strong hurdle for prosecutors.
2. Civil Liability (Torts)
The victim of excessive force may sue the Chief Constable (vicarious liability) for Assault and Battery. Unlike a criminal trial, the burden of proof in a civil claim is the "balance of probabilities." This is often the primary route for securing financial compensation for injuries or trauma.
3. Misconduct Proceedings
Separate from criminal or civil court, an officer can face a Gross Misconduct Hearing. Under the 2024 Reform Standards, even if force doesn't lead to a criminal conviction, it can lead to immediate dismissal and being placed on the Police Barred List if it is found to be disproportional or dishonest.
9. Use of Force Myths
There is a significant gap between "Social Media Law" and "Statutory Law." Many common beliefs about what police can and cannot do are based on outdated precedents or misunderstandings of the National Decision Model.
Myth 1: The "Must Warn First" Rule
There is a common belief that officers must always give a verbal warning before using force. While the Code of Ethics encourages "Plan A" (communication), the law recognizes that in a dynamic, life-threatening situation, a warning may be impossible or dangerous. If an officer is suddenly attacked, they are not legally required to shout "Stop or I will use force" before defending themselves.
Myth 2: The "One Strike" Limit
Some believe officers are limited to a certain number of strikes or techniques. In reality, the law focus on the outcome and the necessity. If a subject continues to pose a lethal threat after multiple tactical options have been used, those options remain lawful as long as they are proportionate to the ongoing threat.
Myth 3: "Handcuffs Always Equal Arrest"
Handcuffs can be used for "detention" (such as a Section 1 Stop and Search) without an arrest being made. This is authorized by Section 117 PACE. However, the officer must justify the use of handcuffs separately from the search power itself. Being cuffed does not automatically mean you are "under arrest"—though it is a high-level detention.
10. Force in Control Environments
The use of force within a police station or a hospital setting is subject to enhanced scrutiny. In these "closed" environments, the police status as a state guardian is amplified.
The Custody Suite (PACE Code C)
Once a person is in custody, the Sergeant has a non-delegable duty of care. Force used to move a prisoner to a cell or to conduct a "strip search" must be recorded on the custody record and the use of force form. Any application of force in a cell is extremely high risk due to the potential for positional asphyxia against cell furniture.
In 2026, the use of "spit guards" and "emergency restraint belts" (ERBs) in custody is only authorized when there is a specific, imminent risk of assault or self-harm. Routine use of these tools in a cell environment is frequently flagged by the IOPC as potentially degrading treatment under Article 3.
Force in Hospitals
When officers are guarding a suspect in a hospital, their power to use force is limited. They cannot use force to compel a patient to undergo a medical procedure (which requires consent or a Mental Health Act order), but they can use force to maintain custody or prevent the subject from harming hospital staff. The principle of the "least restrictive option" is the primary legal guide in clinical environments.
11. Stop & Search Interaction
The most common point of friction regarding Use of Force occurs during a Section 1 PACE Stop and Search. The law here is a delicate balance: the officer has the power to search, but you have the right to bodily integrity.
Compliance vs. Choice
You are not legally required to "help" the officer search you, but you are legally required to submit to the search. If you physically resist (e.g., pulling away, tensing your arms, or pushing the officer), you are providing the legal justification for the officer to use force under Section 117 PACE. Resistance often escalates a simple search into a physical struggle and potentially an arrest for Obstruction.
The Duty to De-escalate
In 2026, National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) guidance states that officers should explain why they are using force during a search. "I am applying these handcuffs to prevent you from discarding evidence" is a far more lawful and transparent approach than silent application of force.
Your Right to Record
You (or a bystander) have a absolute right to record the police using force in a public place, provided you do not physically obstruct them. In 2026, this "civilian video" is increasingly used alongside BWV to provide a 360-degree view of use of force incidents.
11.1 The Spectrum of Resistance
Scenario A: Passive Resistance (Non-Compliance)
Imagine a subject who goes limp and refuses to move during an arrest. This is "Passive Resistance." The officer is legally authorized to use force to move the subject—such as lifting or using "pain compliance" techniques—but they cannot use high-impact strikes or tasers, as the threat is purely based on weight and inertia, not violence. The proportionality of the response here is measured in seconds; the moment the subject cooperates, the force must cease.
Scenario B: Active Resistance (Pulling Away)
If a subject pulls their arm away to avoid being handcuffed, this escalates to "Active Resistance." The officer's threat assessment shifts. They may now use more robust physical controls, such as a "take-down" to the floor to prevent the subject from running into traffic or discarding a weapon. However, even here, strikes should be avoided unless the officer honestly believes the resistance is about to turn into an attack.
Scenario C: Aggressive Resistance (Assault)
This is the threshold for high-level tactical options. If a subject swings a punch or reaches for an officer's belt, the officer is empowered to use "Aggressive Defense." This includes baton strikes, incapacitant spray, or taser discharge. In 2026, the legal defense for such an officer rests on the Honest Belief that they were facing an imminent risk of injury. The proportionality is judged against the potential damage the subject could have caused.
Scenario D: Lethal Threat (Weaponized Violence)
When a subject uses a weapon or a vehicle as a weapon, the legal standard shifts to McCann v UK (Article 2). Deadly force is only authorized when it is "absolutely necessary." This is the most scrutinized area of UK law; the planning of the operation, the communication of the threat, and the split-second decision to fire are all dissected by the IOPC and often a jury. The law recognizes that in this scenario, "reasonable" can mean "lethal."
12. The Future of Accountability
As we move through 2026, the legal framework for police use of force continues to evolve from a "reactive" model to a "proactive" one. The focus is no longer just on whether the final act of force was lawful, but on whether the entire tactical deployment was managed with a commitment to human rights and de-escalation.
The introduction of AI-driven BWV analysis and real-time use of force reporting has created a "Panopticon of Accountability." Officers are now operating in an environment where every decision is recorded, audited, and potentially scrutinized by a global audience. While this increases the pressure on individual officers, it also provides the best possible protection for those who act within the law.
The Final Authority
"The power to use force is a loan from the people. In a democracy, the police do not 'possess' physical power; they are temporarily authorized to exercise it on behalf of the law. The moment that authority is used without necessity or proportionality, it is not policing—it is violence."
For the public, understanding these rules is not just about "knowing your rights"—it is about maintaining the social contract. When the public understands the thresholds and constraints placed on the police, they are better equipped to hold the State accountable and to cooperate with lawful authority when it is applied fairly.
Police Force FAQ
Q. What law allows police to use force?
ANSWER Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 (prevention of crime) and Section 117 PACE 1984 (to exercise police powers) are the two primary statutory authorities in England and Wales.
Q. Can police use force without arrest?
ANSWER Yes. Force can be used during a stop and search, to prevent a crime, or to protect the safety of the public or the officer themselves, regardless of whether an arrest is made.
Q. What counts as excessive force?
ANSWER Excessive force is any force that is disproportional to the threat, unnecessary to achieve a lawful objective, or used purely as punishment or retaliation.
Q. Is taser use legal?
ANSWER Yes, Tasers are legal for authorized police use under the Firearms Act and Home Office regulations, provided their use passes the tests of necessity and proportionality.
Q. What is the legal definition of 'reasonable force' in the UK?
ANSWER Under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and Common Law, reasonable force is the minimum level of physical power necessary to achieve a lawful objective, judged by what the officer honestly believed the circumstances to be at the time.
Q. Can police use force if I haven't committed a crime?
ANSWER Yes. Section 3 CLA allows for force in the 'prevention of crime.' If an officer reasonably suspects you are about to commit a crime or breach the peace, they can use force to stop you. Additionally, Section 117 PACE allows force to carry out a stop and search.
Q. Are police allowed to punch you in the UK?
ANSWER Yes, provided it is 'reasonable and proportionate.' Strikes are considered a tactical option to neutralize a threat. However, strikes to the head are high-risk and carry a much higher decimal of justification than strikes to the limbs.
Q. What happens if a police officer uses excessive force?
ANSWER The officer can face criminal prosecution for assault, civil claims for damages, and gross misconduct proceedings which may lead to dismissal and a permanent ban from policing.
Q. Do police have to warn you before using a taser?
ANSWER The Code of Ethics states they should warn 'wherever possible,' but it is not a legal absolute. If the threat is immediate and a warning would increase the risk to life, an officer can discharge a taser without warning.
Q. Can I use force against a police officer in self-defence?
ANSWER Legally, yes, but only if the officer is acting unlawfully (e.g., an clearly illegal arrest or excessive force). However, this is extremely high risk; if the officer's actions are later found to be lawful, you will likely be charged with 'Assault on an Emergency Worker'.
Q. Is 'prone restraint' (pinning to the floor) illegal?
ANSWER No, but it is highly regulated. Officers must move the subject into a seated or standing position as soon as possible to prevent positional asphyxia. Prolonged prone restraint is a primary cause of deaths in custody.
Q. What is Section 117 of PACE?
ANSWER It is the enabling power that allows police officers to use 'reasonable force' to exercise any power granted by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, such as searches, arrests, or taking fingerprints.
Q. Can police use force to take my fingerprints?
ANSWER Yes. If you have been arrested for a recordable offence, Section 61 PACE allow officers to use reasonable force to take your fingerprints if you refuse to provide them voluntarily.
Q. Do police have to record every time they touch someone?
ANSWER They must record every application of 'force.' While a guiding hand on the arm might not be recorded, any use of handcuffs, strikes, spray, or tactical tasers requires a formal Use of Force report.
Q. What is the 'Honest Belief' test?
ANSWER Established in Palmer v R, it means an officer's actions must be judged based on what they honestly believed was happening at the time, even if they were mistaken (e.g., thinking a phone was a gun).
Q. Can police use force in a hospital?
ANSWER Yes, to maintain custody or protect staff/public. However, they cannot use force to compel medical treatment without a specific legal order (like the Mental Health Act).
Q. What is a 'Spit Guard'?
ANSWER A mesh hood placed over a subject's head to prevent them from biting or spitting at officers. It is a use of force and must be justified by an immediate risk of such an assault.
Q. Can police use force on children?
ANSWER Yes, the legal standards (proportionality/necessity) apply to everyone regardless of age. However, the threshold for 'reasonableness' is much higher when dealing with minors, and officers must consider their vulnerability.
Q. Is it legal for police to use handcuffs during a search?
ANSWER Yes, under Section 117 PACE, if they have a specific reason to believe you might escape, harm them, or swallow evidence. They cannot 'routinely' handcuff everyone they search.
Q. What is the IOPC?
ANSWER The Independent Office for Police Conduct. They are the external regulator who investigates serious incidents involving the use of force, such as deaths or life-changing injuries.
Q. Can I sue the police for using force?
ANSWER Yes. You can bring a civil claim for 'Battery' or 'Assault.' You must prove on the balance of probabilities that the force used was more than what was 'reasonable' in the circumstances.
Q. What is a 'Red Dot' deployment of a taser?
ANSWER It is when an officer points the taser and activates the laser sight on a subject without firing. This is a use of force and must be reported and justified.
Q. Can police use force to enter my home?
ANSWER Yes, if they have a warrant or under specific statutory powers (like Section 17 PACE for life and limb or to arrest someone for a serious offence).
Q. How long do police have to report use of force?
ANSWER Guidelines suggest reports should be completed 'as soon as practicable' and usually before the end of the officer's shift to ensure the details are fresh.