header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

AFR Technology: Automating bias?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
18 August 2020 / Paul Schwartfeger
Categories: Features , Cyber
printer mail-detail
25974
Paul Schwartfeger highlights the potential for unlawful discrimination to be perpetrated by technology

In brief

  • R (Bridges) v CC South Wales: a warning to technology vendors of the potential risks of unlawful discrimination and bias that can be caused by technology.

In its recent judgment in R (Bridges) v CC South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058, [2020] All ER (D) 26 (Aug) the Court of Appeal upheld three of five grounds of appeal against the South Wales Police (SWP) force’s use of automated facial recognition (AFR) technology. Among its conclusions, the court found that the force’s discretion for its use of AFR was too broad to meet the standard required by Art 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), albeit it found that the force’s use of AFR was proportionate in the circumstances. However, the court’s wider comments in its judgment serve as a reminder of the potential for unlawful discrimination to be perpetrated by technology.

Trials

South Wales Police force has conducted trials of mobile AFR technology

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
Read All
Who’s on the 2026 silk list?
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Arbitration’s fast lane—with guardrails
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll