Facial recognition ruling opens door to wider police deployment as court rejects privacy challenge

Community worker Shaun Thompson and privacy campaigner Silkie Carlo, of Big Brother Watch, had been seeking to challenge the Metropolitan Police’s use of live facial recognition (LFR) under the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming the usage breached Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the ECHR.

But their claim was rejected by the High Court, which ruled their human rights had not been breached by the technology’s usage, which was ““in accordance with the law”.

The ruling comes after the Home Office recently ran a consultation on increasing use of facial recognition systems across the UK.

Malcolm Dowden, a privacy expert with Pinsent Masons, said the decision would open the door to wider deployment of the tools by the authorities.

“This case had been viewed as the first major challenge to deployment based on APP guidance on using facial recognition,” he said.

“Its rejection is likely to fuel increased use of automated facial recognition, not only in policing but also - following the recent Home Office consultation - in areas such as border and immigration control.”

Thompson had previously been misidentified by facial recognition systems in London, which had led to him being detained and questioned by police after it incorrectly identified him as his brother, who was on bail at the time.

Lawyers argued that the use of the technology was a breach of privacy and pointed to a similar case involving South Wales Police in 2020 where the Court of Appeal had found the deployment of facial recognition systems had been unlawful, and was done so without adequate legal safeguards, leaving discretion to individual officers.

Since that ruling in 2020 the College of Policing has issued authorised professional practice (APP) guidance on the deployment of live facial recognition technology which ensures that police forces address issues relating to data protection, explanation of the purpose and scope of deployment and the potential for any bias or discrimination stemming from deployment.

However, the High Court ruled that – unlike in the South Wales Police case – the Metropolitan Police’s policy followed the APP guidance and contained clear criteria for deployment and said the rules around how it should be used would mitigate against any ‘chilling effect’ it could have on the right to protest.

After the ruling Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, said the decision was a significant and important one for public safety.

“Live Facial Recognition works and is one of the biggest break throughs for policing,” he added.

“Our data shows that the technology is highly accurate and we have already made more than 2,100 arrests. Last year alone, more than three million faces walked past the cameras, resulting in just 12 false alerts, none of which led to an arrest. Crucially, every alert is reviewed by trained officers before any action is taken.

“The judgment confirms that we are deploying this technology responsibly and with care. It shows that fairness, accuracy and accountability were part of the design from the beginning. It also recognises that the Met has strong oversight and safeguards in place.

“These include checks to ensure use is proportionate and that people’s rights - such as privacy and freedom of expression – are protected in a way which does not breach human rights."