Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
R (Bridges) v CCSWP and SSHD
all those who were wanted on warrant there was, potentially, a considerable
additional benefit to the public interest, without any impact on the Claimant.
104.
Third, the Claimant submits that SWP’s use of AFR Locate is ‘untargeted and
speculative’. In our view, the opposite is the case, on the evidence before us.
The watchlists are clearly targeted: being directed only to those people who
need to be located for good reason, i.e. they are suspected of involvement in
crimes. The choice of location is not speculative: there is good reason for
considering that some of those on the watchlist may be at the locations where
AFR Locate is deployed. First, those on the watchlist are, generally, those who
are wanted by SWP (for offences committed in the South Wales area, or for
warrants issued by South Wales courts). AFR Locate has not been used
generally in support of warrants issued/offences committed elsewhere in
Wales or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Second, there are sometimes
much closer connections between those on the watchlist and the particular
location where AFR is deployed (as with the bomb hoaxer at the Motorpoint
Arena). Third, the results speak for themselves: at most events, at least one
person on the watchlist has been identified, often resulting in the apprehension
of people who were wanted and would not otherwise have been identified (see
above generally).
105.
Fourth, the Claimant submits that AFR Locate is being used to locate people
who are not suspected of having committed (or being about to commit)
criminal offences. However, the vast majority of those on watchlists were
those who are wanted on warrant or on suspicion of having already committed
an offence. Where others are also included (e.g. the bomb hoaxer) then these
have to be justified on a case-by-case basis. The inclusion of any person on
any watchlist and the consequent processing of that person’s personal data
without sufficient reason would most likely amount to an unlawful
interference with their own Article 8 rights.
106.
Fifth, the Claimant submits that there is no evidence of a relevant change to
SWP’s capacity to locate criminals since AFR Locate was used. However, the
evidence demonstrates that, during the present trial period, this new
technology has resulted in arrests or disposals in 37 cases where the individual
in question had not been capable of location by existing methods. The
technology also clearly has considerable benefits in terms of saving resources
that are currently deployed in searching for individuals, resources which in the
future could otherwise be deployed in other ways to prevent crime and protect
the public (see the evidence of Inspector Lloyd).
Further observations
107.
Finally, it is noteworthy that SWP’s use of AFR Locate has been the subject of
independent academic analysis by Cardiff University’s Police Science
Institute. The UPSI Report makes it clear that AFR Locate is not a “silver
bullet” and that there are a number of challenges. Nevertheless, it concluded
that “The evidence clearly supports the conclusion that AFR processes and
systems can contribute to police identifying persons of interest that they would
not otherwise have been able to do so.” It also considered that some of the