Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Bridges) -v- CC South Wales & ors 2018 and section 64 of the DPA 2018; and (4) breach of the PSED. The Appellant sought declarations as to those breaches and damages. 33. In the event, ground 2 has not been pursued. 34. SWP has not challenged the Appellant’s standing to bring these proceedings. It has not been possible for SWP to check either whether the Appellant’s image was recorded by CCTV on 21 December 2017 or 27 March 2018 or whether his facial biometric information was processed by the AFR equipment on either occasion. For pragmatic reasons SWP has accepted the Appellant’s evidence that he was present on both occasions and that on those occasions his image was recorded. SWP does not dispute that the Appellant is a victim for the purposes of section 7 of the HRA. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by consent, SWP and the Secretary of State opposing the grounds for judicial review on the substantive merits. The Divisional Court’s judgment 35. The Divisional Court heard the claim over three days. It handed down an admirably clear and comprehensive judgment on 4 September 2019. It is impossible in the following brief summary to do justice to the judgment. We do no more than summarise the principal points of the judgment in order to provide a context for this appeal and our discussion and conclusions below. Article 8 of the Convention 36. The Divisional Court held that Article 8 was engaged. They considered that, like fingerprints and DNA, AFR technology enables the extraction of unique information and identifiers about an individual allowing his or her identification with precision in a wide range of circumstances, and that AFR-derived biometric data is information of an intrinsically private character. They said (at [57]) that the fact that the biometric data is derived from a person’s facial features that are manifest in public does not detract from that. They said (at [59]) that Article 8 is triggered by the initial gathering of the information and that it is sufficient if biometric data is captured, stored and processed, even momentarily. 37. The Divisional Court found that the interference with rights in Article 8(1) was justified by the conditions of Article 8(2). They rejected the Appellant’s primary argument that the use of AFR Locate by SWP was not “in accordance with the law” for the purposes of Article 8(2) because (1) there is no legal basis for the use of AFR Locate and so SWP does not, as a matter of law, have power to deploy it, and (2) in any event, any interference with Article 8 rights is not subject to a sufficient legal framework. 38. The Divisional Court held (at [75] to [78]) that using cameras with AFR technology to obtain the biometric data of members of the public in public falls within the common law powers of the police to obtain and store information for policing purposes, and that the compilation of the watchlists is both authorised under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and within the powers of the police at common law. This is not an issue which we have to address in this appeal, since it is now common ground that SWP do have the power to deploy AFR Locate.