A former ballet dancer, once celebrated for his role in Billy Elliot and a performance for the late Queen Elizabeth II's 80th birthday, is seeking nearly £600,000 in compensation. He alleges that a career-ending ankle injury occurred during a disputed encounter with the police. This legal battle brings to the forefront questions about the use of force and its impact on an individual's livelihood and artistic aspirations.

Alexander Loxton, who also played Older Billy in the West End production of the acclaimed musical, claims that his dreams of reaching the pinnacle of the dance world were shattered following an incident involving the Metropolitan Police. The heart of the matter lies in whether the force used during a stop-and-search was justified and whether it directly led to the injury that curtailed his promising career. The legal proceedings are unfolding at the Central London County Court, where both sides are presenting their arguments.

Prior to the alleged incident, Loxton had garnered considerable acclaim for his talent and dedication. He received training at the prestigious Royal Ballet Upper School, a breeding ground for some of the world's finest dancers. His early success hinted at a future among the ballet elite, with opportunities to perform with renowned companies and in high-profile West End productions. However, fate took an unexpected turn, leaving him with physical limitations that he claims have irrevocably altered his professional trajectory.

Loxton is now pursuing legal action against the Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, arguing that the stop-and-search was unwarranted and the subsequent use of force was excessive, constituting "assault and battery." He contends that the actions of the police directly resulted in a severe ankle ligament injury that has rendered him unable to perform the demanding maneuvers required of professional dancers.

The Met Commissioner, however, denies any liability, asserting that Loxton's injuries, if any, were a consequence of his own resistance during the detention. Furthermore, the defense argues that Loxton's dance career was already experiencing a decline prior to the incident, attributing it to factors such as pre-existing injuries, salary disputes, and limited opportunities within the competitive dance industry.

Robert Talalay, the barrister representing the police, suggests that Loxton's career trajectory began to falter as early as January 2014. He points to a combination of physical setbacks, disagreements over compensation, and a scarcity of suitable roles as the primary drivers behind the perceived decline. This argument challenges the notion that the police encounter was the sole or primary cause of Loxton's career derailment.

Despite the defense's claims, Talalay acknowledges that Loxton's early career showed "great promise," recognizing his potential and the initial success he achieved in the dance world. This acknowledgement adds a layer of complexity to the case, highlighting the contrast between Loxton's earlier achievements and his current circumstances.

Fiona Murphy, Loxton's KC, counters the defense's arguments by emphasizing his potential to reach the upper echelons of ballet. She cites his lead role in Romeo and Juliet and his work with the Dutch National Ballet as evidence of his high caliber and ability to compete among the best. She argues that these experiences demonstrate his talent and potential, suggesting that he was on a path to continued success before the alleged police misconduct.

While acknowledging that Loxton had experienced injuries and strains throughout his career, Murphy maintains that he had consistently recovered and was actively working to re-establish himself in the dance world when the incident with the police occurred. This assertion challenges the defense's claim that his career was already in decline, portraying him instead as a resilient performer determined to overcome challenges.

The court also heard details of Loxton's rigorous ballet education at the Royal Ballet Upper School, where his "dedication, ability, and talent" were consistently recognized and praised. His exceptional performance earned him scholarships and awards, further solidifying his potential for a successful career in dance.

Beyond his role as Older Billy in the West End production, Loxton also showcased his versatility and range in other productions, including "The Nutcracker" and "Peter Rabbit." These performances demonstrated his ability to adapt to different styles and genres, broadening his appeal and expanding his opportunities within the performing arts.

Murphy contends that Loxton possessed the necessary qualities to achieve significant success in the ballet world, potentially joining premier league companies or finding success in West End musicals and film productions. The incident with the police, she argues, abruptly halted this promising trajectory, leaving him with lasting physical and emotional scars.

Describing his injuries as "permanent and career-ending," Murphy emphasizes that Loxton's intensive rehabilitation efforts have been insufficient to overcome the limitations imposed by the ankle damage. Despite his determination and commitment, he remains unable to perform the full range of movements required for high-pressure ballet work.

The specific challenges Loxton faces include difficulties with jumping, changing direction, and landing, all of which are fundamental to ballet technique. These limitations prevent him from executing the complex choreography and demanding physical feats required of professional dancers, effectively ending his career in the field.

Loxton alleges that the ankle damage occurred during a forceful stop and search following his visit to Kennington Police Station to retrieve a stolen motorbike helmet visor in September 2016. While at the station, he decided to inquire about a stolen motor scooter, leading to the confrontation with the officers.

According to Loxton's account, he was confronted by a group of officers near a gated area behind the police station. The situation escalated when a police car reversed towards him and an officer demanded identification, sparking a disagreement over whether he was obligated to comply.

The confrontation escalated further when an officer allegedly grabbed Loxton's arm and attempted to force it behind his back. Loxton tensed in response, and the officer then allegedly stamped repeatedly on his foot while continuing to pull on his arm.

Loxton claims that he was then handcuffed, searched, and "slammed" against a wall, where he was allegedly struck with blows. Even while against the wall, one of the officers allegedly continued to stamp on his ankle, exacerbating the injury.

The alleged incident has left Loxton with lasting damage to the ligaments in his ankle, causing him physical pain and limiting his mobility. He also reports experiencing emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, and degradation as a result of the encounter.

Medical evidence suggests that the crucial ankle injury likely occurred when Loxton was being "manhandled in various directions" while one of the officers allegedly "clamped down" on his foot. This specific action, combined with the forced movements, is believed to have caused the damage that ended his dancing career.

The Met's legal team paints a different picture, asserting that Loxton displayed a "rude and aggressive demeanor" when officers asked him to move on from a gated area near the police station. They claim he attempted to walk away when asked to be searched, leading to the use of force.

According to the police account, Loxton resisted the search, requiring multiple officers to restrain him. The defense claims that one of the officers placed his foot on Loxton's foot "to keep him in place" during the search. The Met argues that the force used was reasonable and proportionate, given Loxton's alleged resistance.