{"id":448,"date":"2026-07-04T18:53:31","date_gmt":"2026-07-04T18:53:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/?p=448"},"modified":"2026-07-05T05:52:27","modified_gmt":"2026-07-05T05:52:27","slug":"bridges-v-chief-constable-of-south-wales-police","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/bridges-v-chief-constable-of-south-wales-police\/","title":{"rendered":"Bridges v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"ai_generated_summary":"","wpai_meta_description":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"affected_subject":[61,74,76],"country":[110],"judicial_forum":[115,114],"relevant_legal_instruments_artic":[96,112,113,111],"rights_involved":[123,122,121,120,119],"thematica_area":[42,51,44,49],"class_list":["post-448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","affected_subject-activists","affected_subject-digital-users-online-communities","affected_subject-general-public","country-united-kingdom","judicial_forum-court-of-appeal-civil-division-uk","judicial_forum-ordinary-court","relevant_legal_instruments_artic-article-8-protection-of-personal-data-central","relevant_legal_instruments_artic-article-8-echr-as-incorporated-central","relevant_legal_instruments_artic-articles-10-and-11-expression-and-assembly-contextual","relevant_legal_instruments_artic-uk-human-rights-act-1998","rights_involved-democratic-participation","rights_involved-freedom-of-assembly","rights_involved-freedom-of-expression","rights_involved-non-discrimination","rights_involved-privacy-and-data-protection","thematica_area-ai_surveillance_digital_rights","thematica_area-gender_vulnerability_discrimination","thematica_area-right_to_protest_civil_disobedience","thematica_area-security_public_order_counter_terrorism"],"acf":{"observation_unit":["Judicial Decision"],"role_in_the_chilling_effect":"Judicial Response","linked_records":"","country":[110],"geographic_area":["Europe","Council of Europe Area"],"year":2020,"event_date":"20200811","last_updated":null,"thematic_area":[42,51,44,49],"measure_type":["Police or Security Measure","Protective Judicial Decision","Surveillance or Data Collection","Digital or Algorithmic Measure"],"pressure_actor":"Court Judiciary","affected_subjects":[61,74,76],"rights_involved":[119,120,121,122,123],"relevant_legal_instruments_and_articles":[112,96,113,111],"record_status":"Decided","case_outcome":"Measure Annulled or Limited","outcome_description":"The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on three grounds. It declared that South Wales Police\u2019s use of Live Automated Facial Recognition on 21 December 2017, 27 March 2018 and on an ongoing basis engaged Article 8 ECHR and was not in accordance with the law. It also held that the Data Protection Impact Assessment did not comply with section 64(3)(b) and (c) of the Data Protection Act 2018, and that South Wales Police had not complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The Court did not prohibit facial recognition technology as such and rejected the proportionality ground. For the CHILL Barometer, the decision should be treated as a protective judicial response that reduces, but does not remove, chilling pressure.","judicial_response":"Court Limits the Measure","judicial_forum":[114,115],"main_source":"https:\/\/www.judiciary.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/R-Bridges-v-CC-South-Wales-ors-Judgment.pdf","secondary_sources":"","source_type":[],"source_reliability":5,"overview":"Bridges v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police is a landmark Court of Appeal judgment on the police use of live automated facial recognition in public space. South Wales Police had deployed AFR Locate, a system using CCTV cameras to capture facial images in real time, extract biometric templates and compare them with images on police watchlists. Edward Bridges challenged the technology after being present during deployments in Cardiff, including one connected to a defence exhibition protest. The Court held that the use of AFR Locate was not in accordance with the law for Article 8 ECHR purposes because the framework gave excessive discretion over who could be placed on watchlists and where the technology could be deployed. It also found defects in the Data Protection Impact Assessment and non-compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty. For the CHILL Atlas, the decision is a protective judicial response: it reduces chilling pressure by requiring clearer legal limits, better data protection assessment and serious attention to racial and gender bias in biometric surveillance.","barometer_status":"Complete Assessment","barometer_scope":"Judicial Response Assessment","effect_on_chilling_pressure":"Reduces Pressure","chilling_effect_level":"Very High","measure_intensity":0,"legal_uncertainty":"0","sanctioning_risk":0,"breadth_of_affected_subjects":0,"vulnerability_of_affected_subjects":0,"documented_deterrent_effect":0,"public_visibility_exemplary_effect":0,"replicability_of_the_measure":0,"surveillance_or_data_collection":0,"procedural_safeguards":5,"protective_judicial_response":3,"corrective_or_mitigating_effect":4,"barometer_source_reliability":5,"total_barometer_score":76,"barometer_confidence":"High","barometer_notes":"This assessment measures the protective impact of the Court of Appeal judgment, not the restrictive intensity of South Wales Police\u2019s AFR Locate deployments. Restrictive indicators are set to 0 because the underlying police use of live automated facial recognition should be assessed in a separate linked measure record. The judgment reduces chilling pressure by finding that the existing framework failed the Article 8 \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d requirement, that the DPIA was defective, and that South Wales Police had not fulfilled the Public Sector Equality Duty. The score is very high because the decision imposes important safeguards for biometric surveillance in public space. The corrective effect is not scored as 5 because the Court did not ban AFR technology in principle and rejected the proportionality ground.","presence_of_ai":"Yes","role_of_ai":["Biometric Identification"],"automation_level":"High","human_oversight":"Formal Only","data_type_used":"Biometric Data","ai_act_relevance":"High","environmental_context":[],"economic_actor_involved":[],"corporate_accountability_connection":["Not Assessed"],"aarhus_convention_connection":["Not Assessed"],"enable_chill_scoring":true,"record_direction":false,"scoring_record_type":false,"case_family_id":"","linked_restrictive_measure":null,"linked_corrective_decision":null,"evidence_confidence":"medium","coercive_severity":0,"protected_activity_nexus":0,"reach_replicability":0,"deterrence_visibility":0,"duration_and_persistence":0,"vulnerability_power_asymmetry":0,"ai__data_opacity":0,"remedy_strength":0,"rights_based_reasoning":0,"generalizability_precedent":0,"implementation_compliance":0,"procedural_safeguards_created":0,"timeliness":0,"watchdog_vulnerable_protection":0,"linkage_multiplier":1,"implementation_multiplier":1,"safeguards_reducing_chilling_pressure":[],"manual_safeguard_deduction":0,"pressure_cap":100,"protection_cap":100,"enable_manual_score_override":false,"chilling_pressure_score_raw":0,"chilling_pressure_score_final":0,"protective_correction_score_raw":0,"effective_protection_score":0,"final_chill_score":0,"final_score_label":false,"score_explanation":"","main_evidence_for_score":"","scoring_uncertainty":false,"scoring_version":"low : Low uncertainty medium : Medium uncertainty high : High uncertainty","last_scoring_review":null},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/448","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=448"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/448\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":459,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/448\/revisions\/459"}],"acf:term":[{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"judicial_forum","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/judicial_forum\/115"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"judicial_forum","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/judicial_forum\/114"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"relevant_legal_instruments_artic","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/relevant_legal_instruments_artic\/111"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"relevant_legal_instruments_artic","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/relevant_legal_instruments_artic\/113"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"relevant_legal_instruments_artic","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/relevant_legal_instruments_artic\/96"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"relevant_legal_instruments_artic","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/relevant_legal_instruments_artic\/112"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"rights_involved","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rights_involved\/123"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"rights_involved","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rights_involved\/122"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"rights_involved","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rights_involved\/121"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"rights_involved","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rights_involved\/120"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"rights_involved","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rights_involved\/119"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"affected_subject","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affected_subject\/76"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"affected_subject","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affected_subject\/74"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"affected_subject","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affected_subject\/61"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"thematica_area","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematica_area\/49"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"thematica_area","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematica_area\/44"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"thematica_area","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematica_area\/51"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"thematica_area","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematica_area\/42"},{"embeddable":true,"taxonomy":"country","href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country\/110"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=448"},{"taxonomy":"affected_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affected_subject?post=448"},{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=448"},{"taxonomy":"judicial_forum","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/judicial_forum?post=448"},{"taxonomy":"relevant_legal_instruments_artic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/relevant_legal_instruments_artic?post=448"},{"taxonomy":"rights_involved","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rights_involved?post=448"},{"taxonomy":"thematica_area","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chill-lab.eu\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematica_area?post=448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}