Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Bridges) -v- CC South Wales & ors 49. On the first issue, the Divisional Court concluded (at [132] and [133]) that AFR Locate does entail sensitive processing within section 35(8) insofar as it involves processing biometric data of members of the public “for the purpose of uniquely identifying an individual” within section 35(8)(b). 50. On the second issue, the Divisional Court found that AFR Locate meets the first requirement of section 35(5). They held (at [136]) that, for all the reasons given by them in relation to proportionality in the context of Article 8, the first of the requirements at section 35(5), namely “the processing is strictly necessary for the law enforcement purpose”, was satisfied. The Divisional Court held (at [137]) that the second requirement of section 35(5), that the processing must meet at least one of the conditions in Schedule 8 to the DPA 2018, was satisfied because of compliance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 8, the processing being necessary for the reasons given by the Divisional Court in the context of proportionality and Article 8, and the relevant rule of law being the common law duty to prevent and detect crime. As to the third requirement, that the controller has an appropriate policy document in place in relation to the sensitive processing in accordance with section 42, the Divisional Court said (at [139]) that they thought it was open to question whether the policy document relied upon by SWP, entitled “Policy on Sensitive Processing for Law Enforcement Purposes” dated November 2018 (“the November 2018 Policy Document”), fully met the standard required by section 42(2). They added the following at [141]: “For the moment, we confine ourselves to the above observations. Given the role of the Information Commissioner and the prospect of further guidance, we do not think it is necessary or desirable for this Court to interfere at the present juncture and decide whether the SWP’s current November 2018 Policy Document meets the requirements of section 42(2) of the DPA 2018. In our view, the development and specific content of that document is, for now, better left for reconsideration by the SWP in the light of further guidance from the Information Commissioner.” 51. The Divisional Court turned finally, in respect of the Appellant’s data protection claims, to his claim that SWP had failed to comply with the obligation to undertake an impact assessment complying with section 64 of the DPA 2018. The Divisional Court rejected that claim on the grounds that at all material times the processing by SWP was supported by a relevant data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”) and that, approaching the matter on the footing that SWP had brought to bear a conscientious assessment, the impact assessment prepared by SWP did meet the requirements of section 64. The PSED claim 52. The Divisional Court rejected the Appellant’s claim that SWP had failed to comply with its obligation under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 because it did not, in its assessment, consider the possibility that AFR Locate might produce results that were indirectly discriminatory on grounds of sex and/or race because it produces a higher rate of positive matches for female faces and/or for black and minority ethnic faces. The Divisional Court said (at [153]) that there was no suggestion that, as at April 2017