Judicial Precedents On Facial Recognition Evidence
1. S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) – European Court of Human Rights
Facts:
Two men, S. and Marper, were arrested in connection with criminal offences in the UK but later acquitted. However, their biometric data — including fingerprints and facial images — were retained by the police indefinitely. They challenged this retention as a violation of their right to privacy.
Issue:
Whether indefinite retention of biometric and facial data of innocent individuals violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy).
Judgment:
The European Court of Human Rights held that indefinite retention of such personal data violated Article 8. The Court emphasized that facial recognition data is highly sensitive and can reveal significant personal information. Retaining it without sufficient justification constitutes a disproportionate interference with privacy.
Significance:
This case laid the foundation for data protection principles related to biometric and facial data, influencing how facial recognition evidence must be handled — stressing that it must be proportionate, necessary, and legally justified.
2. State v. Lynch (2019) – United States (New Jersey Appellate Division)
Facts:
In this case, the police used facial recognition software to identify the defendant, Lynch, from surveillance footage related to a robbery. The defense argued that the technology’s reliability had not been adequately proven and that the algorithm used by the police was not transparent or scientifically validated.
Issue:
Whether facial recognition evidence can be admitted in court without proof of its reliability and scientific validity.
Judgment:
The court refused to admit the facial recognition match as conclusive evidence. It held that while such technology can be investigative, it must be supported by independent corroborative evidence before being presented in court. The court stressed the need for transparency of algorithms and validation of accuracy rates.
Significance:
This case established that facial recognition cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless supported by other reliable evidence. It also emphasized the importance of algorithmic transparency and expert testimony to prove reliability.
3. R (Bridges) v. South Wales Police (2020) – Court of Appeal, United Kingdom
Facts:
The South Wales Police deployed automated facial recognition (AFR) in public spaces for surveillance and identification of persons of interest. Edward Bridges, a privacy activist, challenged the use of AFR, arguing that it violated privacy and data protection rights.
Issue:
Whether the use of automated facial recognition by the police was lawful and consistent with privacy and data protection laws.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that the use of AFR was unlawful because:
It lacked a clear legal framework.
It failed to meet data protection standards.
It disproportionately interfered with the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR.
Significance:
This judgment set an important precedent, holding that facial recognition must be governed by clear, specific, and proportionate laws. It restricted indiscriminate use of FRT by law enforcement, reinforcing the need for judicial oversight and safeguards.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Although this case was primarily about video conferencing as evidence, the Supreme Court of India discussed the admissibility of technologically assisted evidence, setting a broader principle for digital and biometric tools.
Issue:
Whether evidence collected or presented through advanced technology can be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the term “evidence” includes electronic and digital forms, provided authenticity and accuracy are ensured. The court stated that technology must assist, not hinder, the process of justice.
Significance:
This case paved the way for acceptance of facial recognition and digital biometric evidence under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It established that technological evidence is admissible if it is authentic, reliable, and properly verified.
5. State v. Anil @ Anthony (2022) – Kerala High Court, India
Facts:
In a murder case, the police used facial recognition software to identify the accused from CCTV footage. The defense challenged the admissibility of this evidence, arguing that facial recognition technology lacks 100% accuracy and may lead to false identification.
Issue:
Whether facial recognition-based identification can be admissible and relied upon for conviction.
Judgment:
The Kerala High Court observed that while facial recognition technology can be used as an investigative aid, it cannot by itself form the sole basis for conviction unless corroborated by other evidence (such as eyewitness testimony, DNA, or call data records).
Significance:
The court highlighted that facial recognition evidence is admissible but must be corroborated. It also called for scientific validation and expert analysis before relying on such data.
Conclusion
| Key Principle | Derived From Case(s) | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Facial recognition must respect privacy rights | S. and Marper v. UK, Bridges v. South Wales Police | Retention or use of biometric data must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. |
| Reliability and transparency are crucial | State v. Lynch | Courts require algorithmic transparency and accuracy validation. |
| Corroboration required | State v. Anil (Kerala HC) | FRT can assist investigation but cannot be the sole proof. |
| Technological evidence admissibility | Dr. Praful B. Desai Case | Digital evidence is admissible if authenticity is established. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments