Met Police live facial recognition pilot in Croydon leads to 103 arrests
The Metropolitan Police deployed live facial recognition cameras in Croydon from October onwards, leading to 103 arrests in the first few months. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has criticized the deployment as operating under unlawful safeguards that could chill rights at protests, and the government is consulting on new regulatory oversight.
What happened
Since October, the Metropolitan Police deployed live facial recognition (LFR) cameras fixed to street furniture in Croydon, with feeds monitored remotely to identify wanted offenders.
The pilot resulted in 103 arrests in its first few months, including a third related to violence against women and girls, a woman wanted since 2004 for failing to appear at court for assault, a man wanted on suspicion of kidnap, and a sex offender suspected of breaching a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
Reported impact
The Metropolitan Police reported the technology has removed more than 1,700 offenders from London streets since the start of 2024 and hailed its 'impact and success' in keeping Londoners safe.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission described the Met Police's policy on live facial recognition as 'unlawful', stating its rules and safeguards 'fall short' and could have a 'chilling effect' on individuals' rights when used at protests. Campaign groups including Big Brother Watch have objected to the technology as surveillance that turns the country into 'an open prison'.
Index analysis
The incident raises concerns about mass surveillance and the scope of facial recognition deployment in public spaces without explicit consent from those surveilled.
In December, the government launched a 10-week consultation on regulating police use of facial recognition and proposed creating a regulator to oversee such tools and protect privacy.
Governance controls
The Equality and Human Rights Commission found the Met Police's safeguards around live facial recognition use to be inadequate and potentially unlawful.
The government was proposing new regulatory oversight and seeking consultation on what powers a dedicated regulator should have over police biometrics and facial recognition tools.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.