Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
R (Bridges) -v- CC South Wales & ors
vicinity of each AFR deployment and to every person that is spoken to as a result of an
AFR intervention. There is also material about AFR on SWP’s website.
20.
Whilst deployment of AFR is not covert, it is nevertheless reasonable to suppose that a
large number of people whose facial biometrics are captured and processed by SWP’s
use of AFR are unaware of this taking place.
Biometric Data
21.
The use of AFR technology involves the collection, processing and storage of a wide
range of information, including (1) facial images; (2) facial features (i.e. biometric
data); (3) metadata, including time and location, associated with the same; and (4)
information as to matches with persons on a watchlist. AFR entails the processing of
biometric data in the form of facial biometrics. The term “biometrics” is described in
the Home Office “Biometrics Strategy – Better Public Services Maintaining Public
Trust” published in June 2018 (para. 1) as “the recognition of people based on
measurement and analysis of their biological characteristics or behavioural data”.
22.
Biometric data enables the unique identification of individuals with some accuracy. It
is this which distinguishes it from many other forms of data. Facial biometrics are one
of the primary forms of biometric data, alongside fingerprints and DNA.
23.
Facial biometrics bear some similarity to fingerprints because both can be captured
without the need for any form of intimate sampling and both concern a part of the body
that is generally visible to the public. A significant difference, however, is that AFR
technology enables facial biometrics to be procured without requiring the co-operation
or knowledge of the subject or the use of force, and can be obtained on a mass scale.
Oversight and Advisory Board
24.
The Secretary of State has set up an Oversight and Advisory Board, comprising
representatives from the police, the Home Office, the Surveillance Camera
Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Biometrics Commissioner, and the
Forensic Science Regulator, to co-ordinate consideration of the use of facial imaging
and AFR by law enforcement authorities.
The specific incidents giving rise to these proceedings
25.
In addition to challenging the lawfulness of SWP’s use of AFR Locate generally, the
Appellant complains about two particular occasions when AFR Locate was used in
Cardiff by SWP and, he maintains, he was caught on camera. Those two occasions
were: (1) on 21 December 2017 at Queen Street, a busy shopping area in Cardiff; and
(2) on 27 March 2018 at the Defence Procurement, Research, Technology and
Exportability Exhibition (“the Defence Exhibition”) which was held at the Motorpoint
Arena.
21 December 2017 Deployment
26.
On 21 December 2017 SWP deployed a single marked AFR-equipped van at Queen
Street in Cardiff city centre. The AFR system was live from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. There
were three watchlists for this deployment: one was of a person suspected of having
committed a serious crime, another comprised 382 people wanted on warrants, and the