‘Ministers have launched a consultation to give police greater powers to stop and search individuals with prior knife convictions.’
The Independent, 14th September 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In R(Bridges) v South Wales Police, the England and Wales Court of Appeal reviewed the lawfulness of the use of live automated facial recognition technology (‘AFR’) by the South Wales Police Force. CCTV cameras capture images of the public, which are then compared with digital images of persons on a watchlist.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd September 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R. (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 [2020] 8 WLUK 64 is thought to be the first case in the world to consider the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. In this short article, we explore the judgment and its implications for the deployment of these and similar technologies in future.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 (handed down on 11 August 2020) was an appeal from what is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Court of Appeal in Bridges, this system constitutes an interference with Article 8 rights which is not such as is in accordance with the law, but which (critically) would be proportionate if a sufficiently narrow local policy were framed.’
UK Police Law Blog, 11th August 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Campaigners are calling for South Wales police and other forces to stop using facial recognition technology after the court of appeal ruled that its use breached privacy rights and broke equalities law.’
The Guardian, 11th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘MI6 officers have been accused of attempting to interfere in a major legal battle over crimes linked to intelligence agencies.’
BBC News, 27th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The police watchdog is launching a review into whether police tactics, such as stop and search, discriminate against ethnic minorities.’
BBC News, 10th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘There has been renewed criticism over stop and search in the UK after research found that BAME people are 54% more likely to be fined under coronavirus rules than white people. The subsequent death of George Floyd in the US and the support for the Black Lives Matter movement has brought more scrutiny to the disproportionality.’
The Guardian, 7th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The ‘Third Direction case’, soon to be brought before the Court of Appeal, concerns the lawfulness of a previously secret national security policy of the UK Government. The policy authorises agents of the Security Service (MI5) to engage in criminal activity, which the claimants allege include the carrying out of torture and murder. Hearings on the case were held in November last year in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), a specialist tribunal which adjudicates complaints on state surveillance and the conduct of the Security Services (MI5, MI6 and GCHQ). The IPT produced a judgment remarkably quickly, published in December.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 7th July 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Automated facial recognition technology that searches for people in public places breaches privacy rights and will “radically” alter the way Britain is policed, the court of appeal has been told.’
The Guardian, 23rd June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘This post discusses the impact of the new CLOUD Act international data sharing regime on the UK’s death penalty assurances policy. This regime—named after its enabling US legislation, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act—is due to come into force in July 2020 following the signing of a bilateral US–UK agreement in October 2019 (US-UK Agreement). It provides a quicker alternative for law enforcement seeking access to electronic data overseas, beyond the existing mutual legal assistance (MLA) process, which operates through MLA treaties (MLATs) and other mechanisms. However, while the CLOUD Act regime has an admirable aim, its implementation weakens the UK’s existing death penalty assurances policy and thus risks exposing the UK and others to significant liability, as discussed below.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st June 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has called for the suspension of the use of automated facial recognition (AFR) and predictive algorithms in policing in England and Wales, “until their impact has been independently scrutinised and laws are improved”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2019] EWHC 2341 (Admin); [2020] 1 WLR 672 is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Divisional Court in Bridges, this may, depending on the facts of each particular deployment, be lawful.’
UK Police Law Blog, 21st February 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘The impact on rape victims of police seizures of their mobile phones is to be examined as the Metropolitan police begin piloting a data inspection system designed to limit invasion of privacy.’
The Guardian, 16th February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Metropolitan police have been accused of defying the warnings of its own watchdogs by beginning operational use of facial recognition CCTV, despite a scathing assessment of its effectiveness from the expert hired to scrutinise its trials.’
The Guardian, 11th February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘MI5 has been ordered by a senior judge not to delete vast databanks of personal information it is storing pending the outcome of a trial over the legality of its surveillance procedures.’
The Guardian, 10th February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The length of time suspects could be bailed without being charged with a crime could be trebled under government plans.’
Each Other, 7th February 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘And so, we reach the end of another year. And what a year it has been. As well perhaps the most tumultuous period in British politics for decades, this year saw the first ever image taken of a black hole, a victory for the England men’s cricket team at the World Cup, the discovery of a new species of prehistoric small-bodied human in the Philippines and signs that humpback whale numbers in the South Atlantic have bounced back thanks to intensive conservation efforts. And the law? Well, rather a lot has happened really. As the festive season draws near, what better way is there to celebrate than to rewind the clock and relive the 10 cases which have defined 2019?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th December 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Speech by Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb: Mind-Reading: Neuroscience and The Law.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 13th December 2019
Source: www.judiciary.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025