Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
R (Bridges) -v- CC South Wales & ors
“… On at least two occasions, in December 2017 and March
2018, the Claimant was targeted by the Defendant’s use of AFR.
Through this claim he challenges:
(i) the unlawful use of this technology against him on both
occasions, and
(ii)
the Defendant’s ongoing use of AFR in public places in
the police area in which he resides, giving rise to a clear risk of
the technology again being used against him.” (Emphasis
added)
142.
It is clear therefore that the substance of the complaint being made by the Appellant in
this claim for judicial review was the impact of the use of AFR by SWP against him,
not anyone else. This point was developed at paras. 17-22 of the Statement of Facts
and Grounds, which set out more detail about the events of 21 December 2017 and 27
March 2018. The point was summarised as follows at the beginning of para. 17:
“It is the Claimant’s case that he has twice been the subject of
the Defendant’s use of AFR technology …”
143.
Further, and in any event, we accept the submission made by Mr Beer on behalf of SWP
that the impact on each of the other members of the public who were in an analogous
situation to this Appellant on the two occasions with which we are concerned for
present purposes (in December 2017 and March 2018) was as negligible as the impact
on the Appellant’s Article 8 rights. An impact that has very little weight cannot become
weightier simply because other people were also affected. It is not a question of simple
multiplication. The balancing exercise which the principle of proportionality requires
is not a mathematical one; it is an exercise which calls for judgement.
144.
For those reasons we would reject Ground 2.
Ground 3: Compliance with section 64 of the DPA 2018
145.
This ground of appeal is limited to two alleged deficiencies in the DPIA. The first is
that there was a material error of law “concerning the non-engagement of Article 8” of
the Convention. The second is that there was a material error of law concerning “the
processing of the (biometric) personal data of persons whose facial biometrics are
captured by AFR but who are not on police watch lists used for AFR”.
146.
Mr Squires made no oral submissions on this ground of appeal and relied upon his
skeleton argument. Mr Facenna both relied on his skeleton argument and advanced oral
submissions in support of this ground of appeal.
147.
Three criticisms of the DPIA are made in Mr Squires’s skeleton argument. First, the
DPIA’s analysis of the application of data protection principles contained no
recognition that AFR entails the processing of the personal data (and still less the
biometric data) of persons not on watchlists. Second, the DPIA did not acknowledge
that the Article 8 rights of such persons are engaged. Third, the DPIA was silent as to
the risks to other rights which are likely to be affected by the use of AFR: the rights to