The City of London police force has failed in an attempt to block disciplinary action against an officer who was accused of clubbing a student over the head and causing a life-threatening brain injury.

The force was immediately criticised over its lawyers’ attempt to persuade a judge that the Independent Office of Police Conduct had overstepped its role when it forced proceedings against PC Mark Alston, who is accused of using excessive force against 20-year-old Alfie Meadows in 2010.

The incident occurred at a demonstration when violence broke out between police and protesters. Meadows, who was a second year philosophy student at the University of Middlesex, needed emergency surgery to save his life. He was subsequently cleared of violent disorder at the demonstration.

Lawyers for the City of London police had tried to argue that the case had no merit, and that the IOPC was “undermining public confidence” in the police by ordering forces to bring too many officers before gross misconduct disciplinary hearings.

But at a hearing at the high court in London, Lady Justice Sharp and Mr Justice Garnham accepted the IOPC’s case that it was up to a disciplinary panel, not the watchdog, to decide whether a case had merit.

Imran Khan QC, who represented Meadows, said that in his experience too few incidents of police misconduct were properly investigated, and “regrettably, this appears to be an attempt by the police to turn the clock back even further”.

He said: “This action shows that police forces are trying to shield themselves from accountability, which completely undermines principles of truth and accountability, which are essential for the public to have confidence in policing in the UK. Our client has had to battle for many years for justice and we will continue to support him in doing so.”

Meadows also condemned the attempt to question the watchdog’s powers. “That the police think they have no case to answer after almost killing me on a protest as a result of violent and dangerous policing is a damning indictment of how seriously they take police brutality,” he said. “Their failure to acknowledge that they even have a case to answer is emblematic of the fact that the police remain unwilling to address the serious problems of police violence, abuse of power, and unaccountability.”

In a skeleton argument submitted to the high court last Thursday, lawyers for the City of London police had argued that the case against Alston was “hopeless”, given the evidence available.

They also argued the case had broader significance because it reflected “widespread concern” from police forces that the IOPC was directing them to bring gross misconduct hearings with no chance of success, “thereby damaging public and police officer confidence in the police complaints system”.

“This cannot be in the public interest or in the interests of maintaining public confidence in and the reputation of the police service.”

In response, the IOPC said that it was up to the disciplinary panel to decide whether the case had merit. “It has at times been alleged, and in some cases it has been held by the courts, that the IOPC had acted unlawfully by dismissing allegations of police misconduct at the ‘case to answer’ stage,” the watchdog told the court.

“The courts have repeatedly emphasised the focused nature of the IOPC’s function in this regard, which must be carefully distinguished from making a decision on the substance of the allegations.

“The latter task falls not to the IOPC but to the relevant misconduct panel if a case to answer is identified.”

A City of London police spokesman said the force acknowledged the court’s decision and would “comply with [their] statutory duty” to hold a disciplinary hearing for Alston.