The UK High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge brought against the Metropolitan Police Service’s policy governing overt live facial recognition technology across London, finding the policy lawful and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimants have announced plans to appeal.
The case, styled R (Thompson and Carlo) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, was brought by youth worker Shaun Thompson and civil liberties campaigner Silkie Carlo. The two-judge panel, Lord Justice Holgate and Mrs Justice Farbey, concluded that the Met’s LFR policy “does not authorise arbitrary decision-making, has sufficient clarity and foreseeability, and provides adequate safeguards against abuse.” The court found the policy contains “clear, interlocking and cumulative constraints” on LFR use, including strict limitation to specified operational use cases, detailed watchlist and location rules, and requirements for senior authorisation and oversight. The discrimination arguments advanced by the claimants were characterised by the court as “faintly asserted” without sufficient evidence.
Thompson brought the case after being stopped and questioned for more than 20 minutes at London Bridge in 2023 when LFR cameras wrongly flagged him as on a watchlist. Officers repeatedly demanded fingerprint scans and inspected him for scars and tattoos before releasing him after he presented valid ID. The Metropolitan Police cited 801 arrests attributable to LFR operations through September 2025 as evidence of the program’s operational effectiveness.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley welcomed the ruling. “The question is no longer whether we should use live facial recognition,” he said. “It’s why we would choose not to.” The ruling provides legal cover for the Met’s LFR expansion commitment from last summer, when Rowley committed to more than doubling weekly deployments across London. It also validates permanent LFR cameras installed in Croydon, a deployment Big Brother Watch had called a worrying escalation when it was announced.
Big Brother Watch Director Silkie Carlo called the judgment “disappointing” and confirmed an appeal. “Innocent people deserve clear and strict protections from live facial recognition cameras, which should be reserved for the most serious cases,” she said. Thompson added: “No one should be treated like a criminal due to a computer error.” An appeal crowdfund has been launched, with legal representation from Dan Squires KC of Matrix Chambers and solicitors Bindmans LLP. The ruling was handed down April 21, 2026.
Sources: Big Brother Watch, Local Government Lawyer, Police Professional
–
By the ID Tech Editorial Team
