Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
R (Bridges) -v- CC South Wales & ors
material impact on that Court’s judgment: in particular, that Court made no reference
to the existence of the Board in its reasoning on the issue of whether the interference
with Article 8 rights was in accordance with the law. In any event, it does not affect
this Court’s conclusions or reasoning in this appeal. For that reason we refuse the
application to adduce fresh evidence on behalf of the Surveillance Camera
Commissioner.
Conclusion
209.
For the reasons we have given this appeal will be allowed on Grounds 1, 3 and 5. We
reject Grounds 2 and 4.
210.
As to the appropriate remedy, we consider that declaratory relief to reflect the reasons
why this appeal has succeeded will suffice. In the circumstances which have arisen, the
parties agree that the only remedy which is required is a declaration but they have not
been able to agree the precise terms of a declaration. Having considered the rival
contentions, we have concluded that the declaration proposed by SWP more accurately
reflects the judgment of this Court. We will grant a declaration in the following terms:
1) The Respondent’s use of Live Automated Facial Recognition technology on 21
December 2017 and 27 March 2018 and on an ongoing basis, which engaged Article
8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, was not in accordance with the law
for the purposes of Article 8(2).
2) As a consequence of the declaration set out in paragraph 1 above, in respect of the
Respondent’s ongoing use of Live Automated Facial Recognition technology, its Data
Protection Impact Assessment did not comply with section 64(3)(b) and (c) of the Data
Protection Act 2018.
3) The Respondent did not comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty in section 149
of the Equality Act 2010 prior to or in the course of its use of Live Automated Facial
Recognition technology on 21 December 2017 and 27 March 2018 and on an ongoing
basis.