The Weekly Round-up: A-level Results, Facial Recognition, and Special Educational Needs

17 August 2020 by

Photo: Pixabay

In the news

This week has been awash with controversy over an unexpectedly harsh set of A-level results, with GCSEs set to follow this Thursday. Because students could not sit exams this year due to COVID-19, results were calculated on the basis of an algorithm taking into account mock exam results, predicted grades, and schools’ past performance. As a result, 40% of students have had their predicted grades lowered, with many losing university places as a result. Yet in a tour-de-force of algorithmic elitism, the number of independent school students securing A* or A grades has increased by 4.7%, compared to only 2.2% at state schools, and 0.3% at further education colleges. Multiple legal challenges are in contemplation; Jolyon Maugham QC’s Good Law Project is supporting 7 students in a judicial review of the exam regulator Ofqual’s failings.

Algorithmic injustice has been in the courts this week too, as civil liberties campaigner Edward Bridges won an important victory in the Court of Appeal against the use of facial recognition technology by the police.

Mr Bridges had launched a judicial review against the use of ‘AFR Locate’ facial recognition technology by South Wales Police after being photographed by automated cameras when Christmas shopping and subsequently when involved in a peaceful protest. His challenge had been dismissed by a Divisional Court in September 2019. The original decision was covered on the blog by Sapan Maini-Thompson here.

In handing down its judgement in favour of Mr Bridges, the Court of Appeal made two key findings. Firstly, the legal framework of the DPA 2018, Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s Code of Practice, and South Wales Police policy documents was, contrary, to the Divisional Court’s finding, not sufficient to govern the use of facial recognition technology by the police. It was therefore not ‘in accordance with the law’ under Article 8(2) ECHR. Secondly, South Wales Police had failed to comply with their anti-discrimination duties, as they had failed sufficiently to address concerns about the risk of gender or racial bias inherent in the technology’s matching algorithms. The court’s reasoning is discussed in more detail in a post on this blog by Rafe Jennings.

Reacting to the result, Mr Bridges has emphasised that “this technology is an intrusive and discriminatory mass surveillance tool”, and “we should all be able to use public spaces without being subjected to oppressive surveillance.” The court’s judgement will not, however, prevent the use of facial recognition technology in the long term; it will simply require government, regulators, and the police to put in place the necessary safeguards to ensure that the technology can be used lawfully.

South Wales Police have said that they will not be appealing. Chief Constable Matt Jukes has promised “a commitment to ensuring [the public] can see we are using new technology in ways that are responsible and fair”; this will include the continuation of academic analysis begun in 2019 of algorithmic bias in facial recognition technology. The police will be working with the Home Office and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Tony Porter, to create a new policy framework which complies with the court’s judgement.

In Hong Kong, activists are making use of the UK’s ‘universal jurisdiction’ on torture to bring legal action against five UK police officers who have been serving on Hong Kong’s police force since the 1990s. The officers in question are believed to have been involved in brutal actions taken against anti-government demonstrators, including beatings, stamping on protesters’ heads, kneeling on their necks, as well as torture, sexual assault and rape in custody. The British officers in question have stated in press interviews that they have not used excessive force, and that many police officers have been injured in trying to deal with violent crowds.

In the courts

With the courts in recess, few new decisions have been released this week. Apart from the Bridges case there is only one decision worth reporting.  

In Shaw & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Education, the claimant disabled children challenged a decision by the Secretary of State to modify the obligations on local authorities to make educational and health care (‘EHC’) provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities (‘SEND’) in England. The children in question had not been to school since March 2020, and had been receiving limited support during the pandemic.

In particular, the claimants challenged the enactment of (i) the SEND (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which temporarily relaxed time limits for steps taken to prepare EHC plans, and (ii) three statutory notices modifying the duty to secure provisions specified in EHC plans under s.42 Children and Families Act, ‘watering down’ the duty to a duty to use ‘reasonable endeavours’ to secure those provisions.

These measures were challenged on the basis of (1) breach of the duty to consult, (2) failure to make enquiries with relevant bodies, (3) irrationality in laying the Regulations before Parliament the day before they came into force; (4) irrationality in deciding the notices were appropriate and proportionate; and (5) breach of the duty to have in mind the aim of promoting the well-being of children under s.7 Children and Young Persons Act 2008.

The court rejected the challenge on all grounds.

On the UKHRB

  • Rafe Jennings discusses the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bridges v SWP
  • Rosalind English explains a data protection decision regarding disclosure by a charity of personal mental health information to the claimant’s GP  
  • Rosalind English explores a Strasbourg decision on mandatory face-mask wearing

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: