Mr. John O'Brien:

I do not think there are any legal impediments. I know that, historically, when I was involved in this area in 1997 and 1998, when the Dublin traffic department had made a detection and there was a dispute as to the accuracy of the detection, it then communicated directly with the person stating that "we have got a photograph of [... ] and you may want to come and see it, maybe it was not you". This was done on an ad hocbasis. I am not aware there is any legal issue. Clearly, there is a need to build in the proper safeguards that it was appropriate only for the purpose for which it was retained and all of the issues about destruction afterwards and so on. I do not believe there are any legal issues involved. If we take something that is far more intrusive, such as bodily samples or biological samples, there is a legal profile that allows one to do that kind of thing but it is proportionality. In this case, the photograph is a totally non-invasive process and it does the classic thing. It does what the system is trying to do for the next 20 steps - it identifies the driver. Why on earth would we not want to use it? Of course, we need to legal proof it to make sure it works but why on earth would we not want to use it?