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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll