High Court rejects challenge against Met Police's use of live facial recognition

The High Court in London has issued a landmark judgment regarding a legal challenge against the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) over its use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology. 

The case was brought by youth worker Shaun Thompson and Silkie Carlo, the director of the campaign group Big Brother Watch. The claimants argued that the use of LFR was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Articles 8, 10, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, they claimed that MPS's policy vested too much discretion in individual officers and failed the legal test for foreseeability.

Thompson's involvement stemmed from an incident where he was stopped and detained after a facial recognition match identified him as his brother, who was on a police watchlist. Despite these concerns, the High Court rejected the claims that MPS had breached privacy or human rights laws. The Court's detailed analysis concluded that MPS's policy provides an adequate indication of when the technology will be used, allowing citizens to reasonably foresee the consequences of travelling in areas where it is deployed.

Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has described the ruling as an important victory for public safety, while Policing Minister Sarah Jones also welcomed the decision, confirming that facial recognition technology will be rolled out across the country with record investment. 

In a statement responding to the decision, Silkie Carlo said: "This is a disappointing judgment but the fight against live facial recognition mass surveillance is far from over. There has never been a more important time to stand up for the public's rights against dystopian surveillance tech that turns us into walking ID cards and treats us like a nation of suspects.

"Innocent people deserve clear and strict protections from live facial recognition cameras, which should be reserved for the most serious cases rather than used to scan millions of people, and that is what the appeal will seek to achieve.

Shaun Thompson said, "No one should be treated like a criminal due to a computer error. I was compliant with the police but my bank cards and passport weren't enough to convince the police the facial recognition tech was wrong. It's like stop and search on steroids. It's clear the more widely this is used, the more innocent people like me risk being criminalised."

The claimants have indicated their intention to appeal the decision.

Training Announcement: Freevacy offers a range of independent data protection qualifications from IAPP and BCS. Our certified courses are available at foundation and practitioner levels and cover multiple legal jurisdictions, data protection operations management, and the implementation of complex privacy solutions in technical environments. Find out more.