High Court to Hear Landmark Legal Challenge Against Police Live Facial Recognition

HIGH COURT TO HEAR LANDMARK LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST POLICE LIVE FACIAL RECOGNITION

• The case, brought by a victim of police facial recognition misidentification Shaun Thompson and Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo, will be heard in the High Court on 27th and 28th January 2026

• The challenge comes just weeks after the Government pledged to “ramp up” live facial recognition across the country

• The judicial review claims that the new surveillance tech breaches rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly

“A permanent police line up”

Big Brother Watch, the campaign group supporting Mr Thompson, is leading a national campaign for strict limits on police use of facial recognition.

The Metropolitan Police first used live facial recognition at the 2016 and 2017 Notting Hill Carnivals, achieving a 98% misidentification rate. Following further trials, the force used live facial recognition 9 times between 2020 and 2022. However, in recent years, the force’s use of live facial recognition has significantly increased: it was used 180 times in 2024 and 231 times in 2025.

In 2025 alone, the Metropolitan Police scanned 4.2 million people’s biometric face data using live facial recognition cameras in public areas across the city. The force also installed the first set of permanent facial recognition cameras, scanning a shopping area in Croydon. Hammersmith and Fulham Council committed to upgrading parts of its CCTV network to include permanent live facial recognition cameras.

Director Silkie Carlo argued that the Metropolitan Police’s use of live facial recognition risks making the capital “feel like a panopticon” and “treats the general public like suspects in a permanent police line up”. Big Brother Watch has called on the government to “urgently rein in police forces’ use of these intrusive cameras.”

Legal arguments

The claimants argue that the Metropolitan Police’s use of live facial recognition breaches the right to privacy, protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because the force’s policy on where facial recognition can be deployed is so permissive its use of the technology is not in accordance with law.

Police can choose to deploy live facial recognition cameras at “crime hotspots” and “access routes” to those hotspots, as well as critical national infrastructure, public events, and locations based on officers’ intelligence about crime. The claimants have submitted expert evidence which found that majority of the public spaces in London fall within the broad ‘crime hotspot’ definition”, and argue that in practice, there is no meaningful constraint on the expanse of live facial recognition deployments across the capital.

Ms Carlo said, “The possibility of being subjected to a digital identity check by police without our consent almost anywhere, at any time, is a serious infringement on our civil liberties that is transforming London.

When used as a mass surveillance tool, live facial recognition reverses the presumption of innocence and destroys any notion of privacy in our capital.”

Ms Carlo further argues in the legal challenge that the Metropolitan Police’s use of live facial recognition breaches individuals’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because the excessively broad discretion afforded to officers has a chilling effect on individuals’ ability to protest.

She continued, “This legal challenge is a landmark step towards protecting the public against intrusive monitoring.”

“Stop and search on steroids”

It is the first legal challenge in Europe brought by an individual misidentified by facial recognition technology.

Mr Thompson, a 39-year-old man from London, was travelling through London Bridge, when he was wrongly flagged as a criminal by the Metropolitan Police’s facial recognition cameras. He was held by officers on Borough High Street whilst they asked for identity documents, repeatedly demanded fingerprint scans, and inspected him for scars and tattoos, seeking to confirm that he was the individual flagged by the facial recognition system. The police stop continued for over 20 minutes and Mr Thompson was threatened with arrest, despite providing multiple identification documents showing that he had been falsely identified by the facial recognition technology.

During Mr Thompson’s police stop, another passer-by was misidentified by the live facial recognition cameras and was also stopped and questioned by the police.

Mr Thompson described the police’s use of live facial recognition technology as “stop and search on steroids”.

No facial recognition law

Under the AI Act in Europe, authorities’ use of live facial recognition is generally prohibited and limited only to exceptional circumstances, such as preventing an imminent terror attack, where safeguards apply such as a clear legal basis in national law and judicial authorisation.

However, police forces have controversially used live facial recognition cameras across England and Wales since 2016 absent any primary legislation.

Police facial recognition “watchlists” include not only suspects of crime, but victims as well as “vulnerable persons”.

Police have previously populated watchlists with protesters not wanted for any offences and people with mental health issues not suspected of any crimes.

Last month, the government pledged to significantly “ramp up” police forces’ use of live facial recognition surveillance.

In 2023, 65 parliamentarians across parties, including Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey MP, Conservative former minister Sir David Davis MP, Labour’s former Shadow Attorney General Baroness Chakrabarti and over 30 rights and equality groups called on the government to call for an immediate stop to live facial recognition in public spaces in the UK.

Legal team

The claimants are represented by Dan Squires KC, Aidan Wills and Rosalind Comyn of Matrix Chambers. Also acting for the claimants are Jules Carey, Joseph Morgan and Emilia Pearson from Bindmans LLP.

Squires and Wills acted as counsel for Dr Ed Bridges against South Wales Police in the first test case concerning police use of live facial recognition technology. The Court of Appeal found that South Wales Police’s use of the surveillance breached privacy rights as there was insufficient constraints on where it could be used and who could be put on watchlists.

QUOTES

Speaking ahead of today’s hearing, claimant and Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo said:

“This legal challenge is a landmark step towards protecting the public against intrusive monitoring.

“The Met’s expansive use of live facial recognition surveillance risks making London feel like a panopticon and treats the general public like suspects in a permanent police line up.

“The possibility of being subjected to a digital identity check by police without our consent almost anywhere, at any time, is a serious infringement on our civil liberties that is transforming London. When used as a mass surveillance tool, live facial recognition reverses the presumption of innocence and destroys any notion of privacy in our capital.

“We are totally out of step with the rest of Europe on live facial recognition. This is an opportunity for the court to uphold our democratic rights and instigate much-needed safeguards against intrusive AI-driven surveillance.”