BondAdams continues its gap year student placement scheme and its graduate champion mid-year scheme BondAdams has continued its project of taking on students who have completed their year 2 at University and are seeking a year’s placement to enhance their training and...
On 4 September Haddon-Cave LJ and Swift J in the Divisional Court had to grapple with the legal issues surrounding automatic facial recognition (AFR) when considering a South Wales Police (SWP) national pilot scheme surrounding AFR. R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Information Commissioner and another intervening)  EWHC 2341 (Admin) was apparently the first time that any court in the world had considered AFR.
The claimant was Edward Bridges, a Cardiff-resident civil liberties campaigner. He was supported by Liberty. The defendant was chief constable of SWP, which is the national lead on AFR use in UK policing (assisted by government funding) and has been responsible for conducting trials of AFR technology since mid-2017.
The claimant challenged the lawfulness of SWP’s use of AFR Locate generally and complained regarding two particular occasions (both part of the SWP pending trial) when AFR Locate was used in Cardiff by SWP when he was present.
His overall contention was that SWP’s use of AFR Locate, on the two occasions in question and generally, is contrary both to convention rights and the requirements of data protection legislation. The claimant also contends that when deciding to implement use of AFR Locate, SWP failed to comply with the public sector equality duty (that is, the obligation on public authorities such as SWP, under section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010, to have ‘due regard’ to certain prescribed matters when exercising their functions).
In respect of convention rights (and in particular article 8 – right to respect for personal and family life and so on), the court noted (among other authorities) S v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 50. The European Court of Human Rights emphasised the significance of the protection of personal data as part of protecting article 8 rights and indicated that: ‘The mere storing of data relating to the private life of an individual amounts to an interference within the meaning of article 8’. In all the circumstances, the court found that the use of AFR Locate did entail infringement of the article 8(1) rights of those in the position of the claimant in this case.
However, as to the legal basis for SWP’s use of AFR, the court found that the police’s common law powers were ‘amply sufficient’ in relation to the use of AFR Locate. Moreover, the police did not need new express statutory powers for this purpose. The court also considered that there was a clear and sufficient legal framework governing whether, when and how AFR Locate may be used. This comprised three elements: primary legislation; secondary legislative instruments; and SWP’s own policies. Each provides legally enforceable standards.
The court was ‘satisfied both that the current legal regime is adequate to ensure the appropriate and non-arbitrary use of AFR Locate, and that SWP’s use to date of AFR Locate has been consistent with the requirements of the Human Rights Act, and the data protection legislation’.