Oversight of retrospective facial recognition must be improved, says HMICFRS

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) has warned that governance, consistency and accountability should be improved to maintain public confidence.

Inspectors found that legislation hasn’t kept up with changes in facial recognition technology and there is no comprehensive statutory framework governing this technology’s use. This makes it more difficult for forces to understand the lawful basis for RFR’s use and what safeguards are needed to protect the public.

HMICFRS said the retention of custody images also remains “an area of concern”. Inspectors found some images which should have been deleted under existing retention rules, which risks undermining public confidence.

In its new report, HMICFRS highlighted that, where used appropriately, RFR can be a valuable and proportionate investigative tool.

RFR has reduced the need for widespread, routine sharing of images by the police through traditional media appeals for information. Instead, forces can use RFR to quickly identify potential suspects and missing or deceased people by comparing images from CCTV, dashcams, social media and other sources with existing custody images.

However, the report adds that while policing has taken steps to address concerns about algorithm bias when using RFR, more needs to be done to reduce the risks of people being wrongly arrested.

His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary Kathryn Stone said: “The introduction of facial recognition technology has transformed suspect identification. Officers no longer need to compare images manually and can get results in seconds, helping them to identify suspects more quickly and solve crimes for the public.

“Our inspection found that the public generally supports the use of retrospective facial recognition. Continued support will depend on policing showing that it uses this technology lawfully, proportionately and openly.

“Police forces must be able to show that appropriate safeguards are in place, risks relating to bias and data retention are effectively managed, and decisions are still subject to human judgment. A clearer statutory framework, stronger national standards and improved governance and oversight arrangements are essential to maintaining public confidence.”

The inspectorate also found that investigators didn’t always receive the training and support needed to understand the capabilities and limitations of RFR, with a more consistent national approach needed. Variation in how well investigators understood the processes for using RFR meant that some less experienced investigators didn’t always understand that a potential RFR match must be corroborated through further enquiries.

The maturity of governance arrangements also varies considerably between forces. Some forces have established policies and safeguards, while others rely heavily on limited national guidance, which increases the risk of inconsistent decision-making and misunderstanding the technology’s limitations.

HMICFRS has made 16 recommendations intended to improve how police forces and the National Crime Agency use RFR and maintain public confidence in its use, including:

• Improving national and local governance arrangements;
• Introducing clear national standards;
• Making sure RFR is used more consistently;
• Introducing clear oversight and supervision of the use of RFR; and
• Improving guidance and training, especially for investigators.