Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

London: Met Police live facial recognition wrongly matched a man to his watchlisted brother; officers stopped him and he later received a settlement

On 23 February 2024 Shaun Thompson, a London community volunteer whom the 2026 judgment describes as 39, walked past a Metropolitan Police live facial recognition deployment near London Bridge station. The High Court records as not in dispute that the system detected a high level of facial similarity between images of him and the watchlist image of his brother, who was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant, and generated an alert. According to the court's account, officers stopped, detained and questioned him and made him prove his identity, and when he declined to have his fingerprints taken he was threatened with arrest; he says the experience left him angry and distressed. Officers ended the engagement after checking police records about his brother, and he confirmed his identity with a passport photograph on his phone. Big Brother Watch, whose director was his co-claimant, says he was held for almost 30 minutes despite showing several identity documents. His judicial review claim about the stop, issued in May 2024, was withdrawn under a consent order agreed on 18 December 2024 on terms including a settlement sum paid to him. An amended challenge to the Met's revised live facial recognition policy of September 2024, brought with Big Brother Watch's director, was dismissed by the Divisional Court on 21 April 2026; the court said it was not judging the merits of the technology, and the claimants announced plans to appeal.

AI system
Metropolitan Police live facial recognition
Occurred
23 Feb 2024
Reported
22 July 2025
Event location
United Kingdom
What the AI did
Made a claim about the person · Informed a human decision about the person
Reported harm
Loss of LibertyPsychological Distress
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Justice · Privacy · Public services
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 3 underlying accounts
6 claims: 4 documented, 2 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: The Metropolitan Police Service's live facial recognition system, which compares faces captured in public places with biometric data from a watchlist of sought persons; the judgment says the force's operational LFR used technology known as the NEC-3 algorithm

Reported harm

A live facial recognition alert wrongly matched him to his brother's watchlist image; according to the High Court's account he was stopped, detained and questioned, made to prove his identity and threatened with arrest when he declined fingerprints, and he says he was left angry and distressed. Big Brother Watch says he was held for almost 30 minutes.

Outcome

Ongoing

His original judicial review grounds about the February 2024 stop were withdrawn under a consent order agreed on 18 December 2024 (sealed 30 April 2025) on terms as to costs and a settlement sum payable to him. The amended claim against the Met's revised September 2024 live facial recognition policy was dismissed on 21 April 2026 ([2026] EWHC 915 (Admin)). IDTechWire reported on 22 April 2026 that the claimants planned to appeal; no appeal decision was found on 26 October 2026.

What remains unknown

  • How long the stop lasted according to the police; only Big Brother Watch gives almost 30 minutes.
  • The settlement amount and whether the force accepted any fault in the consent order.
  • Whether the claimants' announced appeal was filed or permitted.
  • Paragraph 20 of the judgment dates the use of LFR complained of to 23 February 2023; paragraphs 17 and 141 give 23 February 2024, which is used here.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The High Court records as not in dispute that the Met's live facial recognition system detected a high level of facial similarity between images of him and his brother's watchlist image and generated the alert; the court's account and Big Brother Watch describe officers stopping and questioning him after that match. The system's false match is the output that went wrong; the officers' decision to stop him and demand proof of identity followed from it.

6 claims: 4 documented, 2 reported. What the statuses mean

Documented On 23 February 2024 the man passed a Met Police live facial recognition deployment near London Bridge; the system detected a high level of facial similarity between images of him and the watchlist image of his brother, who was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant, and generated an alert.

Causal attribution. Facts recorded by the court as not in dispute; the press summary is the court's own summary of the same judgment.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'It is not in dispute that, on 23 February 2024, Mr Thompson passed an LFR deployment in the area around London Bridge. His face was matched to an image contained on the watchlist in use on that day, so as to generate an alert. The LFR system had detected a high level of facial similarity between images obtained of Mr Thompson and the image of his brother who was on the watchlist as being the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant'
  • judiciary.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Mr Thompson was mistakenly identified during an LFR deployment near London Bridge after being matched to an image of his brother, who was on a police watchlist.'
Reported According to the court's account of his case, officers stopped, detained and questioned him, made him prove his identity, and threatened him with arrest when he declined to have his fingerprints taken; he says the experience left him angry and distressed.

Causal attribution. The court's introduction summarises his account; Big Brother Watch relays the same account. Both rest on his evidence, so the claim is reported, and the 30-minute figure is attributed to Big Brother Watch.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Mr Thompson was stopped, detained and questioned by police officers after having been matched by LFR'; 'they nevertheless scrutinised him, asked questions and made him prove his identity. When he declined to allow his fingerprints to be taken, he was threatened with arrest. Mr Thompson explains how the experience caused him to feel angry and distressed.'
  • bigbrotherwatch.org.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'He was held by officers for almost 30 minutes, who repeatedly demanded scans of his fingerprints and threatened him with arrest'
Documented Officers ended their engagement after considering police records about his brother, and he confirmed his identity with a copy of his passport photograph on his phone.

Causal attribution. Facts set out in the judgment's account of the first claimant.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'They ceased their engagement with him after considering information held on the Police National Computer about his brother. Mr Thompson was able to show police a copy of his passport photograph on his phone, which enabled his identity to be confirmed.'
Documented His original judicial review grounds about the stop were withdrawn under a consent order agreed on 18 December 2024 and sealed on 30 April 2025, on terms as to costs and a settlement sum payable to him.

Causal attribution. Procedural history recorded in the judgment; the amount and any admission are not stated.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'On 18 December 2024 a consent order was agreed (eventually sealed on 30 April 2025) by which grounds 1 and 2 of the original claim were withdrawn on terms as to costs and a settlement sum payable to Mr Thompson.'
Documented On 21 April 2026 the Divisional Court dismissed the amended claim challenging the Met's revised September 2024 live facial recognition policy, saying it was not concerned with the merits of the technology as a policing tool.

Causal attribution. Outcome of the judgment; the challenge concerned the revised policy, not the lawfulness of the February 2024 stop.

Reported IDTechWire reported on 22 April 2026 that the claimants planned to appeal, quoting him: 'No one should be treated like a criminal due to a computer error.'

Causal attribution. Trade press report of the claimants' statements; no appeal decision was found.

  • idtechwire.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The claimants have announced plans to appeal.'; 'Thompson added: “No one should be treated like a criminal due to a computer error.”'

Sources

4 sources inspected, from 3 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-26; no translation. Applies to s1, s2, s3, s4.

Event countries: United Kingdom. Affected-person countries: United Kingdom. Court countries: United Kingdom.

The judgment places the deployment and stop near London Bridge station and says he was born and lives in London; the judicial review was decided by the High Court in London.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-26: Published as a facial recognition false match leading to a police stop, with a legal outcome: the High Court judgment records the system's alert matching him to his brother's watchlist image as not in dispute, a consent order with a settlement sum paid to him, and the dismissal of his later challenge to the force's deployment policy.

People described

A London man, described in the 2026 judgment as 39, who volunteers as a community worker, wrongly matched to his brother's watchlist image

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person: the first claimant, whose face the system matched to his brother's watchlist image and whom officers stopped. The co-claimant witnessed the stop and is not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#live-facial-recognition#police-stop#false-match#watchlist#judicial-review#settlement

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). London: Met Police live facial recognition wrongly matched a man to his watchlisted brother; officers stopped him and he later received a settlement. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2024-london-bridge-met-police-live-facial-recognition-wrongly-matched-man-to-watchlisted-brother-stop-settlement

BibTeX

@misc{2024_london_bridge_met_police_live_facial_recognition_wrongly_matched_man_to_watchlisted_brother_stop_settlement,
  title = {London: Met Police live facial recognition wrongly matched a man to his watchlisted brother; officers stopped him and he later received a settlement},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2024-london-bridge-met-police-live-facial-recognition-wrongly-matched-man-to-watchlisted-brother-stop-settlement}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified facial recognition system

Southampton: Alvi Choudhury arrested at home on suspicion of a Milton Keynes burglary after a police retrospective facial recognition match, held nearly 10 hours, claiming damages

The Guardian, in a joint report with Liberty Investigates, reported on 25 February 2026 that Alvi Choudhury, a 26-year-old software engineer, was arrested at his home in Southampton in January 2026 on suspicion of a £3,000 burglary in Milton Keynes, about 100 miles away, and held in custody for nearly 10 hours. Thames Valley Police had used automated retrospective facial recognition software, which matched him with CCTV footage of the burglary suspect. Choudhury says the man in the footage looked about 10 years younger and had different features. Thames Valley Police wrote to him that the arrest may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology, and told the Guardian that the decision rested on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment and was not influenced by racial profiling. Choudhury is claiming damages from Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary.

Medium Omnilert gun detection

Baltimore County, Maryland: school AI gun alert on a bag of chips leads to police search of a student

On a Monday evening in October 2025 (20 October by the reports' weekday references) an AI gun detection system (Omnilert) used at Kenwood High School alerted on a student holding an empty bag of chips. Police responded and searched the student and found no weapon. The student told a local television station that officers made them kneel, handcuffed them and pointed a gun at them. The school district says its security department reviewed and canceled the alert after confirming there was no weapon, and a district spokesperson said the principal did not immediately realize the alert had been canceled. County councilmembers called for a review. No outcome of a review is established in the sources.

Medium Flock Safety license plate readers

Morristown, Tennessee: police held a grandmother and grandfather at gunpoint and handcuffed them in June 2025, with their 3-year-old granddaughter left in the car, after a Flock alert flagged the grandmother's vanity plate, which matched a recovered stolen pickup's plate spelled with a zero; police say the stop rested on the crime database

In June 2025 Morristown, Tennessee, police stopped a couple driving their 3-year-old granddaughter to a doctor's appointment, held them at gunpoint and handcuffed them both. The grandmother's personalized plate spelled a nickname with the letter O; a Ford F-150 reported stolen in Claiborne County carried the same word spelled with a zero. Business Insider reported in March 2026 that officers received a Flock alert that the plate was stolen, that the Flock investigative summary recorded the couple's plate with a zero, and that the stolen pickup had already been recovered but was never removed from the system. The police department told WATE that the officer ran the tag as displayed, with an O, and that with either character it showed as stolen in the crime information database; the police chief told Business Insider that officers relied on the National Crime Information Center as protocol requires. The grandfather told WATE that he thought he might be shot and felt humiliated, and the grandmother said she was crying as she heard her granddaughter calling for her.

Medium Unidentified facial recognition system

Aracaju (Brazil): facial recognition falsely matched a football fan to a wanted man; police led him from the stands and the state suspended the system

During the half-time interval of the Sergipe state football championship final at the Batistão stadium in Aracaju on 13 April 2024, military police took a personal trainer from the stands to a police room after the stadium's facial recognition system flagged him as a man with an open arrest warrant; he was searched and questioned and released once police confirmed he was not the person sought (G1, his lawyer and the military police). Sergipe's governor publicly regretted 'the failure of the facial recognition tool' and suspended its use until a new protocol was adopted. In June 2024 the man sued the state for 550,000 reais in moral damages; the state argued that the Aracaju municipality, not the state, had contracted the system. In December 2025 the judge rejected that preliminary objection, according to Mangue Jornalismo, which read the court file. No final judgment is reported.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents