Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Bridges) -v- CC South Wales & ors “… On at least two occasions, in December 2017 and March 2018, the Claimant was targeted by the Defendant’s use of AFR. Through this claim he challenges: (i) the unlawful use of this technology against him on both occasions, and (ii) the Defendant’s ongoing use of AFR in public places in the police area in which he resides, giving rise to a clear risk of the technology again being used against him.” (Emphasis added) 142. It is clear therefore that the substance of the complaint being made by the Appellant in this claim for judicial review was the impact of the use of AFR by SWP against him, not anyone else. This point was developed at paras. 17-22 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds, which set out more detail about the events of 21 December 2017 and 27 March 2018. The point was summarised as follows at the beginning of para. 17: “It is the Claimant’s case that he has twice been the subject of the Defendant’s use of AFR technology …” 143. Further, and in any event, we accept the submission made by Mr Beer on behalf of SWP that the impact on each of the other members of the public who were in an analogous situation to this Appellant on the two occasions with which we are concerned for present purposes (in December 2017 and March 2018) was as negligible as the impact on the Appellant’s Article 8 rights. An impact that has very little weight cannot become weightier simply because other people were also affected. It is not a question of simple multiplication. The balancing exercise which the principle of proportionality requires is not a mathematical one; it is an exercise which calls for judgement. 144. For those reasons we would reject Ground 2. Ground 3: Compliance with section 64 of the DPA 2018 145. This ground of appeal is limited to two alleged deficiencies in the DPIA. The first is that there was a material error of law “concerning the non-engagement of Article 8” of the Convention. The second is that there was a material error of law concerning “the processing of the (biometric) personal data of persons whose facial biometrics are captured by AFR but who are not on police watch lists used for AFR”. 146. Mr Squires made no oral submissions on this ground of appeal and relied upon his skeleton argument. Mr Facenna both relied on his skeleton argument and advanced oral submissions in support of this ground of appeal. 147. Three criticisms of the DPIA are made in Mr Squires’s skeleton argument. First, the DPIA’s analysis of the application of data protection principles contained no recognition that AFR entails the processing of the personal data (and still less the biometric data) of persons not on watchlists. Second, the DPIA did not acknowledge that the Article 8 rights of such persons are engaged. Third, the DPIA was silent as to the risks to other rights which are likely to be affected by the use of AFR: the rights to