HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has banned Meta’s camera-equipped smart glasses from courtrooms and tribunal buildings across England and Wales, the Guardian reported on August 11, 2026. The prohibition applies to devices such as the Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta glasses, both of which contain built-in cameras that can capture photos and video with a single tap.
Officials confirmed the ban covers all court and tribunal premises in the two jurisdictions, placing the glasses in the same category as mobile phones, cameras and other recording equipment that visitors, lawyers and journalists are already barred from using inside hearings without explicit judicial permission.
Why courts are drawing the line
Recording in English and Welsh courts has been tightly restricted since the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which makes it a criminal offence to take photographs inside a courtroom, and the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which extends restrictions to audio recordings without the court’s consent. The rules exist to protect witnesses, jurors, victims and defendants from being filmed or photographed without their knowledge, and to prevent proceedings from being manipulated or taken out of context outside the room.
What has changed is the technology. Smart glasses look like ordinary eyewear, and their cameras can be triggered with a discreet tap or voice command, making covert recording significantly harder to spot than someone visibly holding up a phone. Court security staff have reportedly raised concerns that existing bag-and-phone checks were not designed to catch a device worn on the face.
Court staff say the glasses’ camera is far less obvious than a phone, making it harder to enforce a rule that predates the technology by nearly a century.
Part of a wider pattern
The court ban follows a string of similar restrictions imposed by private businesses and public venues across the UK in recent months. Pubs, restaurants and theatres have already begun turning away customers wearing the glasses or asking them to remove the devices before entering, as detailed in NarwhalTV’s earlier report on how UK venues have banned Meta’s smart glasses over privacy fears. Operators in that sector cited customer discomfort and the difficulty of policing consent when diners or theatregoers cannot easily tell whether they are being filmed.
Courts represent a more consequential extension of that trend, given the legal weight attached to recording restrictions in judicial settings. Breaching the Criminal Justice Act 1925 can result in a fine, and unauthorised recordings that surface publicly have previously triggered contempt proceedings against those responsible.
How the ban will be enforced
HMCTS has not detailed a specific technical method for detecting the glasses, meaning enforcement will likely rely on visual identification by security staff and signage at entry points, similar to existing phone policies. Visitors are expected to declare or surrender any recording-capable eyewear at security checks, and judges retain discretion to permit exceptions, such as for accredited media covering proceedings where recording is otherwise allowed.
Legal commentators note that the policy effectively closes a gap rather than creating new law: the underlying recording offences already apply to any device capable of capturing images or sound, smart glasses included. The update simply makes explicit that the glasses fall within scope and gives court security a clear basis for confiscating or refusing entry to visitors wearing them.
Meta’s response and wider context
Meta has marketed its smart glasses, produced in partnership with EssilorLuxottica under the Ray-Ban and Oakley brands, as a hands-free way to capture video, take calls and interact with an AI assistant. The company has previously said the glasses include a visible LED light that activates during recording, intended to signal to bystanders that filming is taking place. Critics argue the indicator is small and easy to miss, particularly in busy or dimly lit environments such as courthouses.
The device has sold well since its wider UK launch, but the wave of venue-level bans highlights a persistent gap between how the technology is marketed and how the public and institutions perceive its privacy implications. Unlike earlier waves of concern about smartphone cameras, smart glasses complicate the basic visual cues people have relied on for years to know when they might be recorded.
What happens next
HMCTS has not indicated whether the policy will be reviewed or expanded to cover other wearable camera devices as they reach the market. For now, anyone attending a court or tribunal hearing in England or Wales should expect to leave Meta’s smart glasses at the door, alongside phones and other recording equipment, or risk being turned away at security.
