header-logo header-logo

22 May 2026 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8162 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Criminal , Public
printer mail-detail

Scanning the streets

250391
© Guy Bell/Shutterstock
Nicholas Dobson surveys the lawfulness of live facial recognition
  • The challenge to the Metropolitan Police Service’s live facial recognition policy, adopted on 11 September 2024, failed since it was found to be ‘in accordance with the law’ under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ‘prescribed by law’ under Arts 10 and 11.

Facial recognition can be challenging, particularly for those with high mileage on the ageing clock. For while recognising a face might be easy, putting a name to it can be harder. Groucho Marx, though, had no such problem. ‘I never forget a face,’ he once declared. ‘But in your case, I’ll be glad to make an exception’.

However, while facial recognition might be awkward socially, it won’t usually end up in court. But this was not so for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) where on 21 April 2026 Lord Justice Holgate and Mrs Justice Farbey dismissed a judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of the live facial recognition (LFR) policy of MPS, adopted

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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll