01
Factual background & dispute
- Police surveillance cameras captured facial images of members of the public in real time and compared them against watchlists.
- The claimant was scanned during two deployments and subsequently sought judicial review challenging the legality of the system.
- The case raised issues concerning privacy, data protection, the Public Sector Equality Duty, and the limits of police discretion.
02
Core issues & judicial focus
- Whether sufficiently clear legal standards governed who could be placed on watchlists and when the system could be deployed
- Whether the Data Protection Impact Assessment adequately identified risks to individual rights
- Whether the police satisfied the Public Sector Equality Duty
03
Judicial finding & holding
- The Court of Appeal held that the deployments were unlawful on three grounds.
- The governing legal framework conferred overly broad discretion regarding watchlist composition and deployment locations.
- The Data Protection Impact Assessment and compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty failed to meet statutory requirements.
04
Practical risk implications
01Facial recognition initiatives require clearly defined watchlist criteria, operational deployment parameters, and exclusion rules.
02Deploying entities must evaluate misidentification risks across demographic groups prior to deployment and document corrective measures.
03Public deployments require data protection impact assessments, prominent on-site notices, and independent oversight mechanisms.