Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Bridges) -v- CC South Wales & ors 157. The Appellant’s criticism is that the Divisional Court was obliged to reach a finding on whether the November 2018 Policy Document complied with section 42, and ought to have found that it did not. 158. We would reject this ground of appeal for reasons which can be shortly stated. 159. The two specific deployments which are the subject of the Appellant’s claim took place on 21 December 2017 (Queen Street) and 27 March 2018 (Motorpoint Arena). Those were before the DPA 2018 came into force. There is no alleged failure to comply with the DPA 1998 on this point. 160. Accordingly, the only relevance of compliance with section 42 was in relation to any future use of AFR in which the Appellant’s image might be captured and processed by AFR. A section 42 document is an evolving document, which, in accordance with section 42(3), must be kept under review and updated from time to time. At the time of the hearing before the Divisional Court no guidance had been issued by the Information Commissioner as to the contents of a section 42 document. The Divisional Court said (at [140]) that it would be desirable to see specific guidance from the Information Commissioner, in exercise of her powers under Schedule 13 to the DPA 2018, on what is required to meet the section 42 obligation. The Information Commissioner herself expressed the view to the Divisional Court that the November 2018 Policy Document contained sufficient information to comply with the requirements of section 42(2), if barely so. That view has been repeated by the Information Commissioner on this appeal. In the event, on 4 November 2019, after the Divisional Court’s judgment, the Information Commissioner did publish guidance on what a section 42 document should contain – “Law Enforcement Processing: Part 3 Appropriate Policy Document Template”. SWP have now revised their November 2018 Policy Document in the light of that guidance. 161. In those circumstances - particularly as the Information Commissioner had expressed the view to the Divisional Court that the November 2018 Policy Document satisfied section 42(2) but ideally should be more detailed and the Divisional Court itself was uncertain whether or not it did meet the standard required by section 42 - it was entirely appropriate for the Divisional Court to make no final judgment on the point and to leave the SWP to make such revisions as might be appropriate in the light of any future guidance by the Information Commissioner. 162. For those reasons we would reject this ground of appeal. Ground 5: Public Sector Equality Duty 163. The terms of the PSED are set out in section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 as follows: “A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to— (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;