WIREDGOV

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has called on the Metropolitan Police to ensure that its use of live facial recognition technology (LFRT) complies with human rights law.

The human rights regulator has been granted permission to intervene in an upcoming judicial review examining whether the Met Police’s use of the technology complies with human rights law.

The EHRC acknowledges the potential value of LFRT to policing but believes that the Met’s current policy governing the use of LFRT is incompatible with Articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression), and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Why is the regulator intervening?

Live facial recognition technology captures and analyses the faces of individuals passing in front of real-time CCTV cameras. It extracts unique biometric data from each face and compares it against a “watchlist” of people sought by the police. These watchlists often contain thousands of individuals. The Met Police has announced plans to use the technology to police major events such as this weekend’s Notting Hill Carnival.

Currently, there is no specific domestic legislation regulating police use of LFRT. Instead, police rely on common law powers. In the 2020 case R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, the Court of Appeal found that the use of LFRT at the time was unlawful, breaching privacy rights and the Equality Act 2010.

Since the Bridges ruling, LFRT has been deployed more frequently, integrated into CCTV networks, and used with larger watchlists. Thousands of faces are often being scanned per deployment. The EHRC’s submission states that these developments mean the use of the technology poses a threat to human rights.

This judicial review claim, R (Thompson and Carlo) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, therefore raises issues of significant public importance. In its intervention, the EHRC has been given permission to provide submissions and evidence on the intrusive nature of LFRT which focus on the way in which the technology has been used in recent years by the police.

What does the EHRC’s submission say?

The EHRC believes that the Metropolitan Police’s policy on live facial recognition technology, which is at issue in the judicial review claim, is unlawful because it is incompatible with Articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression), and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The EHRC’s submission stresses that LFRT can be intrusive, especially so when used on a large scale, and warns that its use at protests could have a “chilling effect” on individuals’ rights under Articles 10 and 11. These rights are fundamental to democratic society.

Data shows that the number of black men triggering an ‘alert’ is higher than would be expected proportionally, when compared to the population of London. The EHRC welcomes that the Met, since 25 July 2024, has adopted a minimum accuracy threshold which it has said will limit the adverse impact on certain protected groups.

However, the regulator notes that the accuracy of the technology is paramount and even low error rates can translate to significant numbers of false identifications when using large watchlists. The consequence of false alerts can be significant for individuals such as for Mr Thompson, who is bringing the judicial review, as he was wrongly identified by LFRT leading to significant disruption. 

The regulator’s submission also highlights international legal and policy developments relating to LFRT and AI regulation, such as the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) which classifies LFRT for law enforcement as ‘high risk’ and says it should be used only when strictly necessary and subject to safeguards.

John Kirkpatrick, Chief Executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:

“Live facial recognition technology is a tool which, when used responsibly, can help to combat serious crime and keep people safe. But the data this technology processes is biometric data, which is deeply personal.

“The law is clear: everyone has the right to privacy, to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. These rights are vital for any democratic society.

“As such, there must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. We believe that the Metropolitan Police’s current policy falls short of this standard. The Met, and other forces using this technology, need to ensure they deploy it in ways which are consistent with the law and with human rights.”