EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF THORNTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

(Application no. 48372/19)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 March 2023

This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Thornton v. the United Kingdom,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
    Tim Eicke, President,
    Faris Vehabović,
    Branko Lubarda,
    Carlo Ranzoni,
    Mārtiņš Mits,
    Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
    Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 February 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr James Edward Thornton, is a British national who was born on 15 September 1978 and lives in Manchester. He was represented before the Court by Ms Sarah Mitchell of Clifford & Partners LLP, a law firm based in London.

2. The United Kingdom Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr David Henderson of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

3. The case originated in an application against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 12 July 2019.

4. On 3 January 2018, the applicant was arrested at Manchester Piccadilly railway station by officers of Greater Manchester Police ("GMP") on suspicion of terrorism-related offences under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The applicant was travelling from London to Manchester when he was identified by the facial recognition system operated by GMP in partnership with NEC Corporation.

5. The applicant was detained at Pendleton Police Station for 36 hours before being released without charge on 4 January 2018. During his detention, his mobile phone (an Apple iPhone 8, IMEI: 353456789012345) and laptop computer were seized and subjected to forensic examination by the North West Counter Terrorism Unit.

6. On 15 March 2018, the applicant filed a complaint with the Independent Office for Police Conduct ("IOPC"), reference number IOPC/2018/00847, alleging unlawful arrest and detention, and interference with his right to privacy. The IOPC investigation, led by Regional Director Ms Patricia Owens, concluded on 28 September 2018 that the arrest was lawful but recommended a review of GMP's facial recognition deployment procedures.

7. The applicant subsequently brought judicial review proceedings in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), case number CO/1247/2019. On 2 May 2019, Mr Justice Cranston dismissed the application, finding that the interference with the applicant's Article 8 rights was "in accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society" for the prevention of crime.

8. The applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), case number C1/2019/1583, was heard by Lord Justice Singh, Lady Justice Nicola Davies, and Lord Justice Haddon-Cave on 11 November 2019. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 18 December 2019, with Lord Justice Singh delivering the lead judgment.

THE LAW

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

9. The applicant complained that the use of automated facial recognition technology by GMP at Manchester Piccadilly railway station on 3 January 2018, his subsequent arrest and detention, and the forensic examination of his electronic devices constituted a violation of his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention.

10. The Court notes that the applicant's bank details with Barclays Bank PLC (account number 20456789, sort code 20-45-67) were accessed during the forensic examination of his devices, along with medical records from the Manchester Royal Infirmary (NHS number 943-567-2891) and correspondence with his solicitor at Clifford & Partners LLP (email: j.thornton@protonmail.com, phone: +44 7700 900123).
