Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Submit Guest Post

Sadiq Khan vs Palantir: What is the £50m Met Police AI legal battle about?

The High Court battle over a proposed police AI contract has moved beyond the original procurement decision and into the communications surrounding it.

Sadiq Khan

Sadiq Khan’s communications will be searched as part of Palantir’s legal challenge over a blocked Met Police contract

Getty Images
  • Palantir is suing MOPAC after the £50m proposed contract with the Met was blocked in May.
  • The mayor and more than a dozen officials will have relevant digital communications searched as part of the case.
  • The dispute centres on whether the Met followed proper procurement procedures and whether MOPAC acted lawfully in stopping the deal.

The legal battle began when MOPAC, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, blocked a proposed £50m, two-year contract between the Metropolitan Police and Palantir.

The US technology company was due to provide AI tools to help the Met automate intelligence analysis in criminal investigations. The proposed agreement followed an earlier short-term arrangement between the force and Palantir.


MOPAC said the Met had seriously considered only one supplier and had failed to present its procurement strategy for approval. It described this as a “clear and serious breach” of procurement rules and said the process prevented it from properly assessing value for money.

Palantir strongly disagreed.

After the contract was blocked, the company accused Khan of putting politics ahead of public safety. It subsequently launched a High Court challenge against MOPAC, arguing that the body had acted unlawfully.

Palantir claims MOPAC introduced an “unlawful veto” and wrongly considered the company’s values and ethics when deciding whether to allow the contract.

It is seeking a declaration that MOPAC acted unlawfully, an order quashing the decision and an order that the contract be awarded to Palantir.

Why are Khan’s messages being searched?

The case has now moved into a crucial evidence-gathering stage.

At a preliminary High Court hearing, Khan and more than a dozen other MOPAC and Greater London Authority officials were designated as “custodians” for the case.

That means their relevant digital communications can be searched for material connected to the dispute. These include emails, text messages, WhatsApp conversations and Microsoft Teams chats, where they exist.

Khan was not initially expected to be included.

MOPAC’s lawyers told the court that they had originally considered it unnecessary and disproportionate to make the mayor a custodian because the contract decision was taken by the deputy mayor for policing and crime.

However, Palantir continued to press for Khan’s inclusion. MOPAC eventually agreed on a “pragmatic basis”.

The searches do not mean that Khan has been accused of wrongdoing. They are part of the disclosure process in the legal proceedings and are intended to identify communications relevant to the issues being disputed.

The exact date range for the searches is still being negotiated.

Sarah Brown, Khan’s former director of communications and strategy, will also have her correspondence searched. Brown moved to Downing Street in July and is now the prime minister’s director of communications.

Her inclusion is particularly relevant because MOPAC has confirmed that she “initiated” press briefings about the decision to block the Palantir contract.

What does Palantir want from MOPAC?

There is a second evidence battle taking place alongside the search of Khan’s communications.

MOPAC is seeking access to Palantir’s own internal documents relating to the contract. Palantir has agreed to provide communications with the Met but is resisting the wider request.

The company says MOPAC’s demand could require it to review around 150,000 documents and has described the request as a “fishing expedition”.

MOPAC argues that Palantir’s internal material could help establish what happened during the procurement process and support its defence of the decision.

The two sides therefore disagree not only over whether the £50m contract should have been blocked, but also over how much evidence each should have to disclose to prove its case.

The full legal battle is due to be heard at the High Court in January 2027.

Before then, the court will have to resolve outstanding questions over disclosure, including the date range for the communications searches and which officials should be included.

The two sides have set aside more than £8m in legal costs for the case, under budgets agreed with the court.

Meanwhile, the Met has started work on a new procurement process for the technology.

The eventual ruling will determine whether MOPAC acted lawfully when it blocked Palantir’s proposed contract. But the case could also provide a detailed look at how a major public-sector technology deal was handled — and what happened behind the scenes before a £50m police contract ended up in court.

Add EasternEye As Your Trusted Source
preferred source on google news

More For You

UK employee

The government is considering changes to apprenticeship funding in England to encourage businesses to train younger workers

Getty Images/iStockphoto

UK plans 25% training cost increase for older apprentices to boost youth hiring

  • Employers could be required to pay 25 per cent of training costs for apprentices aged 25 and over.
  • The proposed change is intended to reverse a 40 per cent decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the past decade.
  • Ministers are considering a phased introduction from September 2027, although the plan has not been finalised.

Employers in England could face higher training costs for older apprentices under government plans to steer more businesses towards hiring and training young people, as ministers try to tackle the youth jobs crisis.

The proposed overhaul of the growth and skills levy would require employers to cover 25 per cent of eligible training costs for apprentices aged 25 and over, while funding would remain available for apprentices aged 16 to 24. The change is being considered as part of the government's response to a review into why so many young people are out of work.

Keep ReadingShow less