Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Bridges) -v- CC South Wales & ors is not specifically concerned with facial recognition technology, although that topic is referred to in the Code. The Code sets out 12 guiding principles at para. 2.6. By way of example the first guiding principle is that: “Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need.” 115. Para. 3.2.3 specifically addresses the subject of facial recognition in the following way: “Any use of facial recognition or other biometric characteristic recognition systems needs to be clearly justified and proportionate in meeting the stated purpose, and be suitably validated. It should always involve human intervention before decisions are taken that affect an individual adversely.” 116. Para. 4.12.1 states: “Any use of technologies such as ANPR or facial recognition systems which may rely on the accuracy of information generated elsewhere such as databases provided by others should not be introduced without regular assessment to ensure the underlying data is fit for purpose.” 117. Para. 4.12.2 states: “A system operator should have a clear policy to determine the inclusion of a vehicle registration number or a known individual’s details on the reference database associated with such technology. A system operator should ensure that reference data is not retained for longer than necessary to fulfil the purpose for which it was originally added to a database.” 118. In the light of the fact that the Code does deal specifically with such matters, it seems to us that it could in principle also deal specifically with what the requirements are for inclusion on a police force’s watchlist. It could also deal with what policies should contain in relation to the location of the deployment of AFR Locate. As we have said earlier, the question whether such policies must be set out in a national document such as this Code or whether they should be set out in local policies determined by each police force is not a matter for this Court. It may be prudent, however, for there to be at least consistency in the content of local policies and that might be the appropriate subject of an amendment to the Code by the Secretary of State. 119. Our attention was also drawn to the guidance which has been published by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner (March 2019) on ‘The Police Use of Automated Facial Recognition Technology with Surveillance Camera Systems’.