The High Court has been informed that the deployment of facial recognition technology by police must be stringently regulated; otherwise, residents of London may find it “impossible” to move around without being scanned.
The Metropolitan Police faces a legal challenge from two activists who argue that the implementation of live facial recognition (LFR) is advancing without sufficient protective measures. They contend that this technology could lead to arbitrary and biased applications.
This lawsuit coincides with the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s initiatives to broaden the use of facial recognition among police departments throughout England and Wales, despite an ongoing public consultation process.
According to the proposed measures, the number of facial recognition vehicles would rise from 10 to 50, allowing for nationwide accessibility.
One of the challengers, Shaun Thompson, a youth worker, was wrongfully identified by LFR, while Silkie Carlo serves as the director of the privacy advocacy group Big Brother Watch.
Dan Squires KC, who is representing the activists, stated in court that the use of LFR by police is escalating “exponentially.” He reported that the Met Police utilized this technology 231 times in 2025, scanning approximately four million faces. Notably, on December 17 alone, LFR cameras at Oxford Circus captured over 50,000 individuals within a span of four and a half hours.
Squires likened facial recognition to a “DNA profile,” as it transforms facial characteristics into encoded data that is then compared against a watchlist.
He pointed out that earlier this year, the Met announced plans to install permanent cameras on buildings and lamp posts throughout Croydon.
Squires cautioned that if restrictions on LFR usage aren’t established, it would render it “impossible” for individuals to navigate London without their biometric information being collected and analyzed.
In defense of the Met, Anya Proops KC argued that officers were actively pursuing “literally thousands” of wanted individuals within London. She described the challenge as similar to searching for stray needles in a vast, densely packed haystack, asserting that LFR allows police to identify those who might otherwise remain unnoticed.
Proops indicated that there were 801 arrests made in 2025 directly attributed to LFR and maintained that the intrusion into citizens’ privacy was “only minimal.” She added that data from individuals not listed on a watchlist is discarded “a fraction of a second” after its creation.
The proceedings, presided over by Lord Justice Holgate and Mrs. Justice Farbey, are expected to conclude on Wednesday, with a ruling to follow at a later date.
