‘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
‘Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD and Singh LJ) allowed the appeal of the civil liberties campaigner, Edward Bridges, against the decision of the Divisional Court which had dismissed his claim for judicial review of South Wales Police Force’s use of live automated facial recognition technology (“AFR”).’
39 Essex Chambers, 17th August 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘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
‘You have to admire the ingenuity of lawyers. Who would have thought that the GDPR could be a tool to try and force the Home Office to allow a deported overstayer with a lengthy criminal record back into the UK to conduct an in-person appeal? Not the Court of Appeal for a start in Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1032.’
Panopticon, 11th August 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘The High Court handed down judgment on Friday in Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors [2020] EWHC 2103 (Fam), the first recorded judgment concerning journalistic access to the court file in public law family proceedings. The case is likely to be of interest to media lawyers generally, and throws up potential complications surrounding the scope and extent of the privacy rights of children vis-à-vis their parents.’
Panopticon, 7th August 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘A British victim of trafficking is bringing a case against the home secretary, Priti Patel, arguing that her department unlawfully accessed personal information including details of her intimate thoughts.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘There has been an avalanche of commentary on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12. The case has provided some welcome guidance on vicarious liability in the wake of the earlier decision of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, and also represents the first class action of its kind in the UK.’
Pump Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘A comprehensive strategic review of the various appellate mechanisms for rights exercisable under the Data Protection Act is “arguably long overdue”, an Upper Tribunal judge has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th July 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The UK government broke the law in rolling out its test-and-trace programme without a full assessment of the privacy implications, the Department of Health and Social Care has admitted after a legal challenge.’
The Guardian, 20th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘It is a common trope of media lawyers that defamation claims have been on the wane since the Defamation Act 2013, and that data protection law might be the way to fill the gap. (We at Panopticon scorn such arriviste tendencies.) And in Warby J, there is a willing champion of alignment of legal principles between defamation and data protection. He particularly emphasised the read-across in the context of complaints of inaccurate data processing in NT1 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) (see here) and he has done so again in his very interesting judgment in Aven v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 1812 (QB).’
Panopticon, 20th July 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Minicab drivers will launch a legal bid to uncover secret computer algorithms used by Uber to manage their work in a test case that could increase transparency for millions of gig economy workers across Europe.’
The Guardian, 20th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Hundreds of pubs across England have reopened their doors after months of lockdown – with a handful having to close again after punters reported testing positive for Covid-19.’
Each Other, 8th July 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘When the First-tier Tribunal decides an information rights appeal and finds in favour of the requestor, who has the responsibility for enforcing any non-compliance with that judgment? Is it the FTT, or is the Information Commissioner? In an interesting judgment of Judge Jacobs in Moss v Information Commissioner & Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames [2020] UKUT 174 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal has held that it is the FTT.’
Panopticon, 2nd July 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘A solicitor who served proceedings on a council by post two days after lockdown had gone into effect showed “poor judgement”, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 29th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Two otherwise unrelated cases were listed together to provide the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), headed by the Vice – President Lord Justice Fulford, with an opportunity to consider various issues relating to the retention, inspection, copying, disclosure and deletion of the electronic records held by prosecution witnesses.’
Park Square Barristers, 26th June 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘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
‘PHG, linked with Cambridge University, provides independent advice and evaluations of biomedical and digital innovations in healthcare. PHG has recently published a series of reports exploring the interpretability of machine learning in this context. The one I will focus on in this post is the report considering the requirements of the GDPR for machine learning in healthcare and medical research by way of transparency, interpretability, or explanation. Links to the other reports are given at the end of this post.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025