London’s Metropolitan Police is facing mounting scrutiny and legal challenges over its rapidly expanding use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology, as critics and human rights advocates warn that the current approach risks violating fundamental civil liberties. The controversy, which has intensified in the lead-up to the Notting Hill Carnival and amid plans for a nationwide rollout, pits claims of improved public safety and crime-fighting against concerns about privacy, proportionality, and discrimination.
In the past 18 months, the Met Police has leaned heavily into LFR, a technology that scans faces in real time via CCTV and matches them against watchlists of wanted individuals. According to the force, this strategy has contributed to more than 1,000 arrests since January 2024, including suspects in serious offences like rape, domestic abuse, and knife crime. "LFR is helping to apprehend wanted criminals in London and catch those who are breaking bail conditions without the need for extensive police resources or frequent visits," the Met said in a statement reported by the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
Yet, the numbers behind these headline-grabbing arrests have drawn skepticism. In 2024 alone, 128,518 faces were scanned in London, resulting in just 133 arrests—a conversion rate that critics argue is hardly a ringing endorsement of efficiency. Moreover, over half of the 180 LFR deployments last year occurred in areas with above-average Black populations, such as Croydon, where more than 20% of residents identify as Black or Black British.
Concerns about racial bias and the disproportionate targeting of minoritised communities have been echoed by Gareth Roberts, the Liberal Democrat Police and Crime Lead on the London Assembly: "Using this intrusive technology without strong safeguards risks eroding civil liberties, disproportionately targeting minoritised communities and undermining public trust in the Met." According to BBC News, research has also shown that facial recognition algorithms can be less accurate when identifying women and people of colour, raising the specter of wrongful identifications and miscarriages of justice.
One such case has become a rallying point for campaigners. Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife crime community worker, was wrongly flagged by LFR as a suspect last year. The privacy watchdog Big Brother Watch is now assisting Thompson in a High Court challenge against the Met. Madeleine Stone, Senior Advocacy Officer at Big Brother Watch, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "The Met police are currently facing a legal challenge over their use of live facial recognition surveillance after an anti-knife crime community worker was wrongly flagged by the technology as a criminal. The Home Office’s decision to invest millions of pounds in this Orwellian surveillance technology while a crucial judicial review on the matter is pending is deeply misguided."
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has taken the unusual step of intervening in the upcoming judicial review concerning the Met’s use of LFR. On August 20, 2025, the EHRC publicly declared the force’s policy “unlawful” and “incompatible” with key provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically the right to privacy (Article 8), freedom of expression (Article 10), and freedom of assembly (Article 11). EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick stated, "There must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. We believe that the Metropolitan Police’s current policy falls short of this standard."
The watchdog’s intervention comes at a time when the Met has more than doubled the frequency of LFR deployments in London, now using the technology up to ten times per week across five days, up from four times per week over two days. The Home Office has also announced that seven additional police forces will gain access to LFR, signaling a significant national expansion.
The Met, for its part, insists that its use of LFR is both lawful and proportionate, citing confirmation from the Court of Appeal that police can use the technology under Common Law powers. A Met spokesperson told the BBC, "We believe our use of LFR is both lawful and proportionate, playing a key role in keeping Londoners safe." The force also points to safeguards, such as the automatic deletion of biometric data unless there is a match, and claims that independent research from the National Physical Laboratory has helped configure the technology to avoid discrimination.
Lindsey Chiswick, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for facial recognition, defended the expansion: "The police have a duty to prevent crime and keep the public safe. Live Facial Recognition supports effective policing, enabling officers to locate suspects quickly and accurately. Each Live Facial Recognition deployment will be targeted, intelligence led, within a set geographical location and for defined period of time, ensuring deployments are proportionate, lawful and necessary."
However, the lack of specific domestic legislation regulating police use of LFR remains a sticking point. The EHRC, civil rights groups, and privacy campaigners argue that this legal vacuum increases the risk of misuse and abuse. Rebecca Vincent, interim director of Big Brother Watch, described the situation as "one of the most pressing human rights concerns in the UK today," warning that "live facial recognition surveillance turns our faces into barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects who, as we’ve seen in Shaun’s case, can be falsely accused, grossly mistreated and forced to prove our innocence to authorities."
On the political front, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has defended the government’s commitment to expanding LFR, arguing that the technology is essential for catching “high-harm” offenders and cutting crime at a time when police budgets are tight. The Met has also announced plans to use LFR at major public events, including the Notting Hill Carnival over the August bank holiday weekend, a move that has proved highly divisive among Londoners and advocacy groups alike.
Some Assembly members, such as Zoe Garbett of the Green Party, have called for a pause and review of LFR’s deployment. "There needs to be a proper pause and review on the use of LFR technology to see whether it’s the best use of resources for policing – we should not just take the number of arrests out of context to measure this," Garbett told the Local Democracy Service. "This technology undermines our fundamental democratic principles by treating us all as suspects, often without our knowledge or consent."
As the judicial review looms and the debate over LFR’s future intensifies, the outcome will likely set a precedent for how surveillance technology is governed in the UK. With policing resources stretched and public trust at stake, the balance between security and liberty has seldom felt more precarious—or more urgent.
