© Ray Tang/Shutterstock
Artificial intelligence, proportionality & purpose are under the spotlight in the latest round-up by the team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
- A Divisional Court decision finding use of facial recognition technology to be in accordance with the law has potentially significant implications for the use of artificial intelligence by public authorities.
- The nature of the proportionality test has been discussed and clarified further by both the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Appeal, with the latter also touching on the tricky goodwill/future income distinction under A1P1.
- The courts have shown willingness to police the true purpose behind decisions and ensure that they are lawful and in accordance with the relevant legislation or policy.
Lawfulness of AI use
In R (Thompson and another) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 915 (Admin), the Divisional Court considered whether the police’s use of live facial recognition technology (LFR) was ‘in accordance with the law’ (IAWL) for the purposes of Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and/or
