header-logo header-logo

Public law update: May 2026

251069
© 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

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll