Written evidence submitted by
Richard Lewis, Deputy Chief Constable, South Wales Police (WBC0011)
Automatic Facial Recognition (AFR) Trials
I write in response to your recent correspondence in relation to the above.
The potential match suggested by either AFR ‘Locate’ which is the mobile system or AFR ‘Identify’ which we use to examine digital imagery from crime scenes in the back office is as you say 'a starting point' and is in effect the same as a police officer or member of the public identifying an image circulated in the press or on social media and informing the investigating officer of their belief. The difference with AFR is that it is far quicker and far more accurate.
In relation to AFR Identify from which we obtain the majority of potential matches, our AFR 1 (positive match) form which includes the probe and candidate image is included within unused disclosure material and provided to the C.P.S.
To my knowledge we haven't been challenged on this in court. If someone denied it was them who had been identified or they were not there at the time of the offence we would then move into Code D of PACE and carry out a defined line-up as part of the investigative phase of the incident or seek to adduce other evidence linking the individual to the scene or offence. In effect the evidence of the person actually being present and committing the crime would be derived from the investigations carried out not the identification of the image by the AFR.
In summary, AFR provides an indication to the officer investigating an offence that the person identified could be the individual being sought and it would be a good place to commence the investigation.
I hope this provides you with the information you required. If I can be of any further assistance or you wish to discuss any aspect of AFR or its use in SWP further please do not hesitate to contact me.