• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • About
  • Posts
  • Blogs
    • B2022
    • The IP Blog
    • Public Law & Regulation
    • AI
    • The Unified Patents Court

LoupedIn

August 27, 2020, Jocelyn Paulley

What do organisations thinking of using facial recognition software need to do following the Court of Appeal judgement in R (Bridges) v CC South Wales?

We have identified four general principles that any organisation wanting to use facial recognition technology should consider following this judgement (as the context and grounds of appeal are to some extent specific in the context of use of facial recognition technology by the police force):

  1. Any use of facial recognition technology must undergo a Data Protection Impact Assessment which should assume that the right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged and likely to be infringed by the use of the technology.
  2. The benefits gained by use of facial recognition technology can outweigh an individual’s right to privacy. This will clearly be context-specific but the use by the police in this instance was proportionate. This balancing exercise must be clearly documented (in a Data Protection Impact Assessment) by an organisation to show that the effect on individuals’ right to privacy under the Human Rights Act has been considered and risks mitigated where possible.
  3. Clearly then facial recognition technology does interfere with an individual’s right to privacy so any use must be “in accordance with the law”. Whilst overall the use of the technology was proportionate, giving individuals (in this case, police officers) discretion as to when it is used and who the technology identifies is unlikely to be “in accordance with the law” unless there is very clear guidance.
  4. Consider whether the facial recognition technology will result in any discrimination or bias. In this case, specific public sector legislation dealing with equality was engaged. Whilst this will not be the case for private sector organisations, the courts are clearly alive to the potential for discrimination and expect users of these systems to satisfy themselves that there will be no bias.

Read on for a more detailed analysis of this judgement via the Gowling WLG website.

About the author(s)

Photo of Jocelyn Paulley
Jocelyn Paulley
Partner at Gowling WLG |  See recent postsBlog biography

Jocelyn is a technology and data lawyer, interested in anything connected to those two topics in non-contentious matters. Her areas of expertise cover IT agreements, data protection, data centres and telecommunications.

  • Jocelyn Paulley
    https://loupedin.blog/author/jocelynpaulley/
    News alert: Aldi becomes latest retailer to be sued at the UPC
  • Jocelyn Paulley
    https://loupedin.blog/author/jocelynpaulley/
    Data centres: Managing the cyber resilience of the newest form of critical digital infrastructure
  • Jocelyn Paulley
    https://loupedin.blog/author/jocelynpaulley/
    What are the top 5 data protection developments for 2024?
  • Jocelyn Paulley
    https://loupedin.blog/author/jocelynpaulley/
    Italy suspends ChatGPT; UK issues reminder of privacy requirements

Filed Under: AI Tagged With: Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Gowling WLG.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Sole(ly) aesthetic? The Birkenstock Sandal goes to the Federal Court of Justice
  • UK Litigation Funding: reform or retain?
  • Arbitration Act 2025 receives Royal Assent

Tags

Artificial Intelligence (AI) (62) Autonomous vehicles (11) b2022 (19) Birmingham 2022 (8) Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games (15) Brexit (23) Climate change (16) Collective defined contribution (6) COP26 (11) Copyright (11) COVID-19 (23) Cyber security (7) Data protection (8) Defined contribution (7) Dispute Resolution (14) Employment (14) employment law (11) Environment (18) Environmental Societal Governance (9) ESG (50) ESG and pensions (11) General Election 2024 and pensions (8) Intellectual Property (86) IP (10) Life sciences (7) litigation funding (8) net zero (6) Patents (40) Pensions (53) Pension Schemes Act 2021 (11) Pensions dashboards (7) Pensions in 2022 (10) Pensions law (43) Procurement (7) Public Law & Regulation (39) Real Estate (27) Retail (8) sustainability (21) Tech (58) The Week In Pensions (11) Trademarks (16) UK (15) unified patents court (9) UPC (39) Week in HR (8)

Categories

Archives

Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

Footer

  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy

© 2025 Gowling WLG