Thompson & Anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

On 30 April 2025, I granted permission to the Claimants to apply for judicial review in relation to the Defendant’s policy governing the deployment of Live Facial Recognition technology (“LFR”) in the Metropolitan Police District. The policy is dated 11 September 2024. As the policy itself states, it concerns the Defendant’s deployment of overt LFR technology to locate persons on a watchlist.

The claim was launched on 24 May 2024 in relation to an earlier policy but was stayed by order of Sheldon J pending the Defendant’s policy review. Following that review, the earlier policy was withdrawn and the September 2024 policy came into force. The claim was amended in order to deal with the September 2024 policy. The grounds of challenge relating to the earlier policy were withdrawn by consent.

The grounds on which permission has been granted may be summarised (with renumbering) as follows:

Ground 1: Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”): The Defendant’s ongoing use of LFR since the introduction of the September 2024 policy breaches the Claimants’ right to respect for private life under article 8 of the Convention because, contrary to article 8(2), it permits the deployment of LFR in a way that is not “in accordance with the law.”

Ground 2: Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention: The Defendant’s ongoing use of LFR since the introduction of the September 2024 policy breaches the Claimants’ rights to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention because, contrary to article 10(2), it permits the deployment of LFR in a way that is not “prescribed by law.” Further or alternatively, it breaches the Claimants’ rights under article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly and association) because it breaches the “prescribed by law” element of article 11(2).