Kent Police deploy live facial recognition cameras in Chatham to target prolific offenders

The Chatham operation sits within a wider Home Office Persistent Offender Pilot running in Kent and Medway, which has identified 110 offenders meeting the pilot’s criteria — suspects in 20 or more offences in the last 12 months who also have five or more cautions or convictions across their lifetime of offending, according to papers from the Office of the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner and Kent County Council. Among the top 20 retail offenders identified in Kent and Medway, 15% have a Criminal Behaviour Order in place, with a further 20% in court proceedings awaiting a CBO hearing. Community Protection Notices have also been used as part of the enforcement approach.

Live facial recognition works by comparing images of people passing a camera in a public place against a watchlist of individuals wanted by police. Images of people not on the watchlist are deleted immediately and automatically after processing, according to Home Office guidance on police use of the technology. Deployments must be overt — with visible signage and a police presence — and are required to be authorised in writing by a senior officer, under College of Policing guidance. Authorisations are time-bound and geographically limited.

Police use of live facial recognition is governed by existing legislation including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010, UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, according to the House of Commons Library. There is currently no dedicated statute specifically regulating its use in policing. The Information Commissioner’s Office conducted an audit of police forces using overt facial recognition and reported that forces were mostly compliant with data protection requirements, with higher compliance recorded for live facial recognition than for retrospective or forensic applications.

Civil liberties organisations have raised legal challenges against police use of the technology, arguing it can be intrusive and disproportionate, and that the absence of a bespoke statutory framework raises concerns about privacy, misidentification and potential discrimination. Those concerns form part of an ongoing national debate and a Home Office consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics and facial recognition.