Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
R (Bridges) v CCSWP and SSHD
crimes or incidents, are compared against images in the SWP custody database
(which contains approximately 500,000 pictures). This use of AFR is not in
issue in these proceedings.
28.
The second use of AFR is referred to by SWP as “AFR Locate”, which as we
have said, is the subject of the claim in this case. SWP has deployed AFR
Locate on about 50 occasions between May 2017 and April 2019 at a variety
of large public events, including on the day of the 2017 UEFA Champions
League Final, at various international rugby matches at the Principality
Stadium, at pop concerts and at an Elvis Presley Festival. The deployment on
31st May 2017, on the day of the UEFA Champions League Final led to the
first arrest from a real-time AFR deployment (of a wanted domestic violence
offender).
29.
When AFR Locate is deployed, digital images of faces of members of the
public are taken from live CCTV feeds and processed in real time to extract
facial biometric information. That information is then compared with facial
biometric information of persons on a watchlist prepared for the purpose of
that specific deployment.
30.
The watchlist is created from images held on databases maintained by SWP as
part of its ordinary policing activities, primarily from a database of custody
photographs held on SWP’s Niche Record Management System. The images
selected for inclusion on a watchlist will depend on the purpose of each
specific deployment. The watchlists used in the deployments in issue in this
case have included (a) persons wanted on warrants, (b) individuals who are
unlawfully at large (having escaped from lawful custody), (c) persons
suspected of having committed crimes, (d) persons who may be in need of
protection (e.g. missing persons), (e) individuals whose presence at a
particular event causes particular concern, (f) persons simply of possible
interest to SWP for intelligence purposes and (g) vulnerable persons6.
31.
In relation to persons placed on a watchlist on suspicion of having committed
an offence and persons wanted on a warrant, there is (subject to the
overarching requirements of proportionality and necessity) no minimum
threshold of seriousness for the types of offences the person committed or is
suspected of committing. The inclusion of persons on a watchlist on suspicion
of having committed an offence and/or person wanted on a warrant is not
dependent upon the existence of any specific basis for suspecting that that
individual is likely to be present at the location at which AFR is deployed,
save that SWP’s current practice is that they will be suspected of offending in
the South Wales area (or wanted on a warrant issued by a South Wales court).
Bespoke watchlists may, however, be created for intelligence purposes where
it is considered likely that a person will be at the location of a particular
deployment. To date, the watchlists used by SWP have comprised between
400-800 people. The maximum capacity for a watchlist is 2,000 images.
6
See also, the UPSI Report, at p. G/177 of the hearing bundle. SWP says that in
practice “intelligence” in this context means knowledge of the attendance of the
particular individual at the particular event for the purpose of the prevention and
detection of crime.