Précédent 2 / 59 Next

Jason Beer QC and Francesca Whitelaw (instructed by Special Legal Casework, South Wales Police) for the Respondent Richard O’Brien and Thomas Yarrow (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Interested Party Gerry Facenna QC and Eric Metcalfe (instructed by the Information Commissioner’s Office) for the First Intervener Andrew Sharland QC and Stephen Kosmin (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Second Intervener Fiona Barton QC (instructed by South Wales and Gwent Police Joint Legal Services) made written submissions for the Third Intervener Hearing dates : 23-25 June 2020 --------------------- Approved Judgment

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

R v. the Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Case Law

Country

United Kingdom

Country Location

Latitude: 52.32950805122076

Longitude: -1.4047851562500706

Country Location (Lié Case Law): United Kingdom

Decision Date: 11 août 2020

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Privacy

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Court Name: The United Kingdom Court of Appeal Civil Division

Case Number: C1/2019/2670

Case Summary: The Court of Appeal Civil Division unanimously held that the South Wales Police’s use of Automatic Facial Recognition Locate technology, both in a general manner and specifically on 21 December 2017 and 27 March 2018, violated the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom Data Protection Act and the Public Sector Equality Duty. The petitioner, Mr. Edward Bridges, appealed the judgment of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division on the grounds that the use of Automatic Facial Recognition Locate technology violated Article 8 ECHR right to privacy and has the potential to produce discriminatory and deterrent effects on freedom of expression and the right of assembly. For its part, the South Wales Police argued that the use of the technology was within its powers, that it was lawful and that notice of its use was given to members attending public events. The Court of Appeal Civil Division held that the use of Automatic Facial Recognition technology did not meet the legality requirement under the right to privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by allowing excessive discretion to the South Wales Police. Furthermore, the Court held that the South Wales Police could not demonstrate that the use of such technology would not have a detrimental effect on other rights of the public or that it did not have the potential to produce discriminatory effects.

Case Significance: Decision (including concurring or dissenting opinions) establishes influential or persuasive precedent outside its jurisdiction. This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Related Caselaw (self)

United Kingdom

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT
Columbia

Date Updated: 27 juil. 2023

Documents principaux

R-Bridges-v-CC-South-Wales-ors-Judgment.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

R v. the Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Documents principaux

Notifications