header-logo header-logo

Surveillance technology unlawful

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll