Met chief warns police risk being outwitted by AI crime

TL;DR:

  • Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley warns criminals exploiting AI evolve faster than forces constrained by rules and slow procurement.
  • He cites a “dark” AI tools market, 3D-printed firearms and a technology spending gap of £6,000-£8,000 per officer versus up to £13,000 elsewhere in the public sector.
  • Rowley calls for fewer, larger forces and faster adoption of live facial recognition and drones.

Britain’s most senior police officer has warned that forces risk falling behind tech-savvy criminals unless procurement speeds up and campaigners stop demanding fresh restrictions on every new tool. Writing in The Telegraph ahead of a speech on Wednesday, Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley argued that offenders “are not bound by the rules” and “do not worry about data protection, proportionality or judicial review”.

A widening capability gap

Rowley pointed to a growing underground market of “dark” AI tools built for cyber crime, alongside 3D-printed firearms designed to evade detection. His central complaint is institutional: public-sector procurement is “too slow, too rigid and too risk averse”, often taking more than a year to deploy technology that may already be obsolete. He also revealed a stark spending gap — the Met can spend only around £6,000 to £8,000 per person on technology, against as much as £13,000 in other parts of the public sector.

The warning lands amid a politically charged backdrop. London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan recently blocked a £50m Met deal to use Palantir software, citing a “clear and serious breach” of procurement rules, while the force this week confirmed plans to expand live facial-recognition cameras across London after Croydon deployments produced more than 170 arrests. The tension echoes recent Resultsense coverage of how AI facial recognition has divided opinion in Peterborough.

Looking forward

Rowley wants structural reform: replacing the 43-force model with fewer, larger forces capable of building advanced technology once rather than dozens of times over. He argues existing legal frameworks already allow responsible adoption, and that waiting for new legislation each time a tool emerges guarantees forces fall behind. For UK technology suppliers and public bodies alike, his intervention reframes AI in policing less as a civil-liberties debate and more as a procurement-speed problem — one with measurable cost in arrests delayed and capability lost.

Share this article