Despite a 2012 high court ruling deeming it unlawful, UK police continue to store images of people arrested but not charged or convicted. These custody images, retained in the Police National Database, are being used for facial recognition, raising significant privacy concerns. The database is accessible to UK police forces and certain law enforcement agencies, and its use has sparked criticism from privacy advocates and civil liberties groups.
The biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner’s annual report highlighted ongoing issues, revealing that forces still keep and use images of individuals who were never charged. It noted that work is in progress to align retention practices with legal standards, but concerns persist about the potential misuse of such sensitive data. Campaigners have long criticized the practice, emphasizing the need for stricter regulations and accountability.
In Scotland, a more restrictive policy is in place, where images are only added to the national database if charges are filed. Additionally, Police Scotland reviews and deletes images not tied to active prosecutions or convictions, demonstrating that lawful compliance is achievable.
The broader situation in the UK remains troubling. A 2017 government review reported over 19 million custody images on the database, with more than 16 million searchable in a “facial recognition gallery.” Although individuals not convicted can request their images to be deleted, privacy groups argue that this approach puts the burden on innocent people rather than enforcing proactive deletion.
Civil liberties organizations like Liberty and Big Brother Watch have condemned the police’s continued retention of these images. They argue that this practice not only violates privacy rights but also fuels the unregulated use of invasive facial recognition technology. Critics describe this as a failure to respect human rights and call for urgent legislative action to regulate such technologies and enforce compliance with the law.
The Home Office, however, maintains that police forces set the rules for image retention and assures individuals can request deletion. Still, campaigners insist that more decisive steps are needed to rectify these breaches and protect citizens’ rights. The ongoing debate underscores a growing tension between law enforcement’s use of technology and public expectations of privacy and justice.