Disney Star Wins £600k After Suffering Career-Ending Injuries from Cop's Mistaken Identity Incident

A DANCE star has submitted a compensation claim of nearly £600,000 after a Met Police officer mistook him for a terrorist.

Alexander Loxton, 36, suffered a career-shattering ankle ligament injury after officers “considerably overreacted” and “repeatedly stamped” on his foot.

Police believed he was a terrorist and conducted a stop-and-search on AlexanderCredit: Champion News Alexander Loxton at the beginning of his dancing careerCredit: Champion News Service Former Billy Elliot dancer Alexander Loxton outside Central London County Court after hearing in case against the Met PoliceCredit: Champion News Service

The incident occurred in September 2016 when the former pro dancer attended Kennington police station in London to collect his stolen helmet visor and motor scooter.

However, police believed he was a terrorist and conducted a stop-and-search on Alexander, during which he suffered an ankle injury, ultimately ending his dance career.

Judge David Saunders that Alexander was entitled to compensation, including £24,000 in “general damages” for his ankle injury and £10,000 in “aggravated damages” to reflect the “oppressive and humiliating” impact of his arrest.

Judge Saunders concluded that the officers were “far too hasty in forming conclusions” that he was a dangerous criminal.

The 36-year-old trained at the Royal Upper School where he demonstrated “dedication, ability, and talent”, the Central London County Court were told.

Originally from , Alexander enjoyed a promising dance career, playing the character of ‘Older Billy’ in the West End ‘Billy Elliot’ show and starred alongside Keira Knightley and Helen Mirren in Disney’s ‘Nutcracker’.

He also worked at the prestigious Dutch National Ballet, played the lead in Romeo and Juliet, and performed as Peter Rabbit for the during her 80th birthday celebrations.

But his “premiere league” ballet career came to a “permanent” end after his ankle injury made him unable to execute extreme jumps and manoeuvres required at his elite level.

Alexander’s KC, Fiona Murphy, said: “He was and remains unable to tolerate the full repertoire of dance manoeuvres, with particular difficulties in the areas of jumping, changing direction and landing.”

Since being forced to stop dancing, Alexander is currently working in security and plans to become a police community support officer.

He successfully sued the Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley despite him denying the claims, stating Alexander sustained the injury as a result of him resisting the officers who detained him.

Lawyers for the Met insist that the former dancer had a “rude and aggressive demeanour” when speaking with the police officers.

The police barrister, Robert Talalay, also claimed Alexander’s career was on the decline when he was injured.

Mr Talalay said: “From January 2014, the claimant’s career plainly declined due to three things: injury, refusal by him to work for what he considered low pay, and limited opportunity.”

Alexander played the character of ‘Older Billy’ in the West End ‘Billy Elliot’ showCredit: Champion News Service Kennington Police Station deny using any disproportionate forceCredit: Champion News Service The Kennington Police Station where ballet star Alexander Loxton claims he was assaulted by copsCredit: Champion News Service

However, he accepted that his pro career had “initially showed great promise”.

Alexander claimed there was no basis for stopping him, and that the force used against him was unreasonable and unnecessary – amounting to “assault and battery”.

The altercation occurred when Alexander went to the police station to retrieve his stolen motorbike helmet visor and decided to check if his stolen motor scooter was also being held at the station in a gated area behind the building.

He was confronted by a group of police officers and asked to show ID which Alexander queried.

“At this point a police car reversed towards the claimant,” said his barrister.

Ms Murphy explained one of the officers then “exited the vehicle, challenged him as to his identification, took hold of the claimant’s left arm and tried to force his left arm behind his back”.

“Mr Loxton tensed. The officer did not succeed in taking control of the claimant’s left arm.

“He stamped his foot repeatedly on the claimant’s left foot while pulling on the claimant’s left arm.

“The officer pushed and pulled him about while clamping down on the claimant’s left foot.”

Two other officers also joined in as Mr Loxton was handcuffed, searched and then “slammed” against a wall, where he was allegedly “struck with blows”.

Then one of the officers “continued to search the claimant and as he did so he again repeatedly stamped his foot down on Mr Loxton’s ankle”, said Ms Murphy.

The Met denied the disproportionate use of force after a police officer spotted Alexander “brazenly looking into the yard” from which bikes had been stolen previously.

The officer suspected that Mr Loxton was “there either to break into the police yard or conduct an activity related to terrorism” which they deemed a ” severe” threat.

“The officers’ evidence is clear that Mr Loxton – a strong young man – was actively and forcefully resisting the search and required five officers and staff to control him before he could be searched,” Mr Talalay said.

“In those circumstances, the force used by the officers was reasonable and proportionate.”

The police officer in question denied ever stamping on the dancer, only placing his right foot onto Alexander’s to keep in position while he was searched.

However, the judge was not convinced.

“This was not a situation where he was in any way being furtive,” said Judge Saunders.

“I found it unusual that the officer was seeking to get hold of Mr Loxton before he had been given a chance to explain himself in a situation where he had already explained himself.

“He said, ‘I need to take hold of him, he was walking away, I needed to take control of him’.

“That is important because I formed the view, on balance, that he overreacted without considering the implications of what he was doing.

“In other words, he was far too hasty in forming conclusions about Mr Loxton, someone, of course, who had never been in trouble with the police, and who it was subsequently discovered was a professional ballet dancer.’

“In my view, Mr Loxton’s account is to be preferred.

“The more likely explanation is that the officer considerably overreacted to the situation, that other younger and less experienced officers were compelled to follow and it has resulted in a quite violent incident and consequent injury to Mr Loxton which was out of proportion to what had actually occurred.

“I have found, on balance, that the application of force by this officer was unlawful and was caused by stamping or the application of force to the claimant’s left foot in accordance with his account.

“I have found that the force used was unjustified. I find that, in accordance with my above findings, the incident must have caused some degree of humiliation – Mr Loxton was handcuffed and placed against a wall by five officers, in full view of anyone passing.”

The judge said he will consider the full issue of compensation for the loss of earnings in Alexander’s dance career at a future date which is just shy of £600,000.