header-logo header-logo

12 August 2020
Issue: 7899 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Surveillance technology unlawful

Police use of face-scanning surveillance technology is unlawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled

Ruling in R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058, the court held the police had been wrong to use automatic facial recognition (AFR) technology to scan Ed Bridges’s face when he was shopping in Cardiff and at an anti-arms protest in the city.

AFR Locate takes images of faces from a live feed and compares them to faces on a watchlist. If no match is found, the image is deleted.

Bridges, represented by civil rights group Liberty, argued the technology was incompatible with his Art 8 right to private life, data protection legislation and the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.

The court held the use of AFR was not in accordance with the law, that there was no clear guidance on where AFR Locate could be used and who could be put on a watchlist. The court said it was too broad a discretion to afford to police officers under Art 8. It held South Wales police had not fulfilled the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, and had not taken reasonable steps to enquire whether the software had bias on racial or sex grounds.

However, the court also held the police’s use of AFR was a proportionate interference with Art 8 since the impact on Bridges was minor whereas the benefits were potentially great.

Anne Studd QC, of 5 Essex Court Chambers, said: ‘The judgment is a significant one because the court declined to rule that, in order lawfully to use live AFR, primary legislation needs to be enacted (in order to regulate processing of images in the same way as fingerprints or DNA is processed by the police service).  

‘Instead, the court has identified the relatively modest changes to the policy framework that are needed in order that live AFR can continue to be used. It is noteworthy that this case arose in the course of a pilot of the system by South Wales Police―as part of that trial, through a co-operative and consensual process by which the issues were brought before the court, the police service has been able to obtain a very helpful decision that maps the way ahead.’

Issue: 7899 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll