Live Facial Recognition – The Balance Between Public Safety and Civil Liberties

The deployment of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology by police forces across the UK has become a hot topic in policing.  The technology is promoted as a powerful tool in crime prevention, but it raises complex questions around data protection, proportionality, and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Recently the Metropolitan Police announced plans to expand their use of LFR technology as part of a wider organisational restructuring. This announcement was followed swiftly by the Home Office confirming the rollout of ten new LFR equipped vans across seven police forces in England.

This blog explores these recent developments, as well as their wider legal and practical implications for both the police and the public.

The Expanding Role of Live Facial Recognition in Crime Prevention.

The Metropolitan Police have committed to doubling its use of LFR technology with deployments set to increase from four to ten times per week. This increase comes against the backdrop of a reduction in personnel following the loss of 1400 officers and 300 staff due to budget cuts. According to the Metropolitan Police, LFR technology has already contributed to 1000 arrests with approximately 773 of those leading to a charge or caution. Whilst the police have many ways to identify suspects, the technology enhances traditional identification methods, such as identity parades and video identification, by enabling the rapid detection of individuals suspected of serious offences in a much more streamlined way.

The Metropolitan Police are not the only police force set to take advantage of the technology, with the Home Office announcing the rollout of ten new LFR vans to seven forces across the country. The announcement forms part of the Government’s Safer Streets Mission and marks a significant milestone in their Plan for Change. The new units are set to be deployed to forces in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey and Sussex, and Thames Valley and Hampshire.

Officials have emphasised the new vans will operate according to strict rules, requiring deployments to be intelligence led. The College of Policing has also issued clear guidance on how the technology should be used.

Civil Liberties and Public Concerns.

The increased use of LFR technology has not been without controversy. In particular, civil liberty groups have repeatedly raised concerns about the lack of robust legislation governing its use. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has stated that the Metropolitan Police’s current policy governing the use of LFR technology is incompatible with Articles 8, 10, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly.

This debate is not new. In 2020 the Court of Appeal ruled that South Wales Police did not fully comply with privacy, data protection, and equality laws in relation to their use of LFR technology. Since then, the police have stated they have addressed the Court’s findings. In the Home Office publication regarding the rollout of LFR technology the Chief Superintendent of South Wales Police, Tim Morgan, has said that “the level of oversight and independent scrutiny means that we are now in a stronger position than ever before to be able to demonstrate that our use of facial recognition technology is fair, legitimate, ethical and proportionate.”

Addressing Protests, Public Order, and Human Rights.

The timing of this expansion coincides with an increase in protest-related activity across the UK. Whilst for many the rollout will be seen as positive, the plans have come under significant scrutiny.

The right to peaceful assembly is enshrined by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the powers of the police in relation to restricting or managing protests is largely governed by  the Public Order Act 1986, with the more recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and Public Order Act 2023 broadening the police’s powers to manage these demonstrations and protests.

The EHRC has stated that the use of LFR technology could have a “chilling effect” on democratic freedoms. Force chief Sir Mark Rowley has addressed concerns reassuring the technology will be used without bias but has also stated that whilst protests are encouraged and very permissive, unfortunately a proportion of them do result in crime and offences.

It is therefore clear that the balancing act between enabling lawful protest/protecting people’s liberties and proactive police identification will remain one of the most contentious aspects of LFR technology deployment.

Conclusion

Live Facial Recognition technology represents both an opportunity and a challenge for modern policing. It offers the police a powerful and important tool to identify serious offenders more efficiently and quickly but also carries significant legal and ethical implications.

With the courts already showing a willingness to intervene where the technology is deployed unlawfully, disproportionately, or against protocols, the key legal question will remain whether safeguards are sufficient to protect the fundamental rights of individuals while enabling the police to carry out their duty to prevent crime and protect the public.

For now, the debate around LFR technology is far from settled, and is likely to remain a hot topic until appropriate legislation is introduced.