Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Bridges) -v- CC South Wales & ors (5) The rules governing the scope and application of measures need not be statutory, provided that they operate within a framework of law and that there are effective means of enforcing them (per Lord Sumption in Catt at [11]). (6) The requirement for reasonable predictability does not mean that the law has to codify answers to every possible issue (per Lord Sumption in Catt at [11]).” 56. There was no material dispute between the parties before this Court that that was an accurate statement of the relevant principles. In applying those principles to the present context, the Divisional Court concluded as follows, at [84]: “In our view, there is a clear and sufficient legal framework governing whether, when and how AFR Locate may be used. … The legal framework within which AFR Locate operates comprises three elements or layers (in addition to the common law), namely: (a) primary legislation; (b) secondary legislative instruments in the form of codes of practice issued under primary legislation; and (c) SWP's own local policies. Each element provides legally enforceable standards. When these elements are considered collectively against the backdrop of the common law, the use of AFR Locate by SWP is sufficiently foreseeable and accessible for the purpose of the ‘in accordance with the law’ standard.” 57. The Divisional Court considered the legislation and policy documents and concluded as follows, at [96]-[97]: “96. Drawing these matters together, the cumulative effect of (a) the provisions of the DPA, (b) the Surveillance Camera Code and (c) SWP's own policy documents, is that the infringement of Article 8(1) rights which is consequent on SWP's use of AFR Locate, occurs within a legal framework that is sufficient to satisfy the ‘in accordance with the law’ requirement in Article 8(2). The answer to the primary submissions of the Claimant and the Information Commissioner, is that it is neither necessary nor practical for legislation to define the precise circumstances in which AFR Locate may be used, e.g. to the extent of identifying precisely which offences might justify inclusion as a subject of interest or precisely what the sensitivity settings should be (c.f. Lord Sumption in Catt at [14]). Taking these matters as examples, the Data Protection Principles provide sufficient regulatory control to avoid arbitrary interferences with Article 8 rights. The legal framework that we have summarised does provide a level of certainty and foreseeability that is sufficient to satisfy the tenets of Article 8(2). It provides clear legal standards to which SWP will be held. As to the content of local policies, we take account that AFR Locate is still in a trial period. The