The High Court (Farbey J) has today handed down a judgment on costs capping and other interim issues in R (Thompson and Carlo) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2025] EWHC 2355 (Admin), a challenge brought in relation to the Commissioner’s policy for the deployment of live facial recognition technology in London. The judgment will be of interest to practitioners bringing or defending strategic litigation.
The claim is brought by individual claimants who allege breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998. The second claimant is the Director of Big Brother Watch (“BBW”), the campaigning organisation. BBW is supporting the litigation and has indemnified the Claimants against the risk of an adverse costs award.
The Claimants sought a judicial review costs capping order (“CCO”) under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, on the basis that these are public interest proceedings that would otherwise be reasonably withdrawn. The Commissioner did not oppose a CCO in principle, but there was a dispute as to its terms.
The Claimants contended that their adverse costs liability should be capped at the level of funds raised for this claim. The Court rejected this proposal, and accepted the Commissioner’s submission that BBW could reasonably be expected to provide a further sum from its unrestricted funds and reserves. The Court observed that the Commissioner’s deployment of funds for this litigation inevitably has an impact on the resources available to the police for other cases, or for frontline policing. The Court further held that BBW, having decided to initiate litigation against a public authority with limited resources, can be expected to prioritise this claim.
The judgment is available here. The case has been widely reported in the press.
Anya Proops KC and Raphael Hogarth act for the Commissioner, with Robert Talalay of 5 Essex Court, instructed by Rex Nicholls and Chloe Cambridge of the Directorate of Legal Services at the Metropolitan Police Service.
