The South Wales Police’s (SWP) use of automated facial recognition (AFR) has been ruled unlawful by the UK Court of Appeal. The Court has held that the existing legal framework for this technology requires more consideration before it can be used by the police lawfully.

Ed Bridges, supported by human rights group Liberty, initially launched the case against the SWP. He challenged the use of this system after he was scanned in Cardiff on two separate occasions, saying the technology caused him ‘distress’. The case was dismissed at High Court which concluded the use of AFR Locate was lawful, and thus he appealed the verdict.

Since 2017, the SWP began trialling the software AFR Locate at public events like concerts and sports matches. Using watchlists of 400-800 people, including criminal suspects and vulnerable persons, the system compares images captured to images saved in the police database.

The Court of Appeal agreed with three of five arguments presented by Bridges and Liberty, finding valid faults in the use of this technology. AFR Locate is operated with little guidance on when the system could be used, as well as who would belong on the database’s watchlist. The Court commented that there were bias concerns that were not thoroughly investigated, a key consideration of another case against the Metropolitan Police’s use of AFR. Conversely, the Court found that the SWP’s deployment of AFR was proportionate under Article 8(2), that its use had potentially great benefits, while the impact of Bridges individually was minor.

The SWP argued that the technology used in AFR is similar to that of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, which was responded with unanimous disagreement by the panel of judges. The Court ruled that ‘too much discretion is currently left to individual police officers’, and the data impact assessment of the technology is insufficient to ensure the software has no racial and gender bias.

Commenting on this decision, Bridges is ‘delighted that the Court has agreed that facial recognition clearly threatens [human] rights’. However, it must be noted that it is not entirely certain if this sets a precedent for the entire United Kingdom, and the judgment has not declared that all police use of facial recognition is inherently lawful. SWP Chief Constable Matt Jukes has decided not to appeal the verdict, and is ‘confident this is a judgement we can work with’.

The Court’s ruling is one step closer in clarifying how this intrusive technology can be used lawfully. With a clearer, more detailed legal framework that mitigates the risk of bias, AFR may be seen back in use by the police very soon.

By: Nicole Woo

The Insufficient Legal Framework of Facial Recognition