Met Police Gangs Matrix legal challenge

Following a Law for Change backed challenge, Metropolitan Police has scrapped its gangs violence matrix database after more than a decade over concerns about the scheme's unlawfulness and disproportionality.

Following a landmark legal case brought by Liberty on behalf of Awate Suleiman and UNJUST UK, supported by Law for Change, the Metropolitan Police conceded that the operation of the Matrix was unlawful. The system discriminates against BAME people, in particular Black men and boys, who are disproportionately represented on the Matrix.

The controversial Gangs Violence Matrix was a system implemented after the 2011 London Riots and has for over a decade discriminated against Black men and boys disproportionately represented on the database.

The case was due to be held at the Royal Courts of Justice, however, the Metropolitan Police Service agreed to an overhaul of the list, with more than a thousand names to be removed as a result of the legal action supported by Law for Change.

In a win for the human rights organisation and its client, the Met admitted that the Matrix breached the right to a private and family life. Personal data of those on the Matrix is shared broadly with third parties – putting them at risk of over-policing, school exclusion, eviction, and in some cases being stripped of welfare benefits, deportation or even children being taken into care.

After the Metropolitan Police agreed to a “complete redesign" of the database, February 2024, the Met Police announced they would fully abandon the database.

At its peak in August 2017, there were 3,881 individuals on the database. Following our successful legal challengeThe number has now dropped to 1,933 - the lowest since the database was introduced.

In the end, Liberty no longer needed our pledge for indemnification, but without it at the time, it would have been hard for them to proceed.

This is an example of the zero-cost, high-impact nature of Law for Change’s work. We support important claims to get over the line that otherwise wouldn’t be able to.

Previous
Previous

DEFRA U-turn on food waste policy

Next
Next

Supreme Court anti-fracking case