{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-26T07:47:03.969Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"watchlist","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2024","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2024-london-bridge-met-police-live-facial-recognition-wrongly-matched-man-to-watchlisted-brother-stop-settlement","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'He was held by officers for almost 30 minutes, who repeatedly demanded scans of his fingerprints and threatened him with arrest'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The court emphasised that it is not concerned with the merits of facial recognition technology as a policing tool.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The claimants have announced plans to appeal.'; 'Thompson added: “No one should be treated like a criminal due to a computer error.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"stopped, questioned and threatened with arrest after a live facial recognition false match, and left angry and distressed","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2026/915","kind":"court_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26; no translation.","independence_group":"ewhc-2026-915"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Summary-of-judgment-Thomson-and-Carlo-v-Metropolitan-Police-Commmissioner-AC-2024-LON-001764-21-04-2026.pdf","kind":"court_press_summary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26; no translation.","independence_group":"ewhc-2026-915"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/press-releases/met-police-face-major-legal-challenge-over-use-of-live-facial-recognition-technology/","kind":"advocacy_press_release","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26; no translation.","independence_group":"big-brother-watch"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://idtechwire.com/uk-high-court-upholds-met-police-lfr-policy-claimants-plan-appeal/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26; no translation.","independence_group":"idtechwire-2026-04-22"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","privacy","public_services"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"London: Met Police live facial recognition wrongly matched a man to his watchlisted brother; officers stopped him and he later received a settlement","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2024-02-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-07-22","aiSystem":"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","aiProduct":"Metropolitan Police live facial recognition","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2026/915","primarySourceLabel":"R (Thompson and Carlo) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 915 (Admin), 21 April 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-26T03:13:03.528278+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-26T03:13:03.528278+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["live-facial-recognition","police-stop","false-match","watchlist","judicial-review","settlement"]}]}