With the recent judgement which finds the Metropolitan Police’s expansive use of live facial recognition to be in accordance with the law, it is essential that Black and other racialised communities remain informed on the laws governing this use, and how this can be used for our protection when errors occur.
The police are unable to use AI however they like; there are strict regulations attached to its deployment, and knowing those legal boundaries is essential.
Here is what the law says:
PACE 1984
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 governs the statutory powers of the police in England and Wales. Code G of PACE is the relevant code here, as it sets out that an arrest is only lawful if an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect a person of criminal activity, and if the arrest is considered necessary.
This means that a facial recognition match generated by an algorithm is not, on its own, sufficient justification for an arrest. Officers must still be able to articulate why they suspected you. If basic checks were not carried out, or if the grounds for suspicion cannot be clearly explained, you may be able to legally challenge the arrest.
Equality Act 2010
Facial recognition technology has a well-documented problem with accuracy disparities, particularly when it comes to race. The cases of Shaun Thompson and Alvi Choudhury illustrate this danger: a false match by an algorithm can have life-altering consequences for the person on the receiving end.
Under the Equality Act 2010, police forces must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination. If a force deploys a facial recognition system known to produce biased results, it may be in breach of this Act, which protects us all from both direct and indirect discrimination.
Human Rights Act 1998
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects the right to a private life. Facial recognition technology, by its very nature, involves the collection and processing of sensitive biometric data, and that raises serious privacy concerns.
Where AI-driven decisions intrude upon a person’s right to privacy without sufficient justification, those decisions can be challenged under this Act. The threshold for interfering with Article 8 rights is high, and the state must demonstrate that any intrusion is lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
Data Protection Act 2018
Under the Data Protection Act 2018, biometric data is classified as special category data, afforded the highest level of legal protection.
Your face is your data, and it is protected by law. Scanning your face in a public space is a highly intrusive act of data collection. If there is no clear and pressing social need for that data to be retained, or if your image remains stored on a police database after you have been cleared of any wrongdoing, this may be challenged.
Links to further reading:
- DPP Law. Wrongful Arrest by Algorithm: The Alvi Choudhury Case and Your Rights. DPP Law Blog: https://www.dpp-law.com/blog/wrongful-arrest-by-algorithm-the-alvi-choudhury-case-and-your-rights/
- Topping, A. Facial Recognition Error Prompts Police to Arrest Asian Man for Burglary 100 Miles Away. The Guardian, 25 February 2026: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/25/facial-recognition-error-prompts-police-to-arrest-asian-man-for-burglary-100-miles-away
- Big Brother Watch. Facial Recognition Fight: Support the Appeal. Big Brother Watch Blog: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/facial-recognition-fight-support-the-appeal/
BLAM UK CIC 