ABSTRACT
Chapter 4 takes the lessons of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in order to examine how surveillance courts have tended to operate in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In theory, the involvement of the judiciary should ensure the independent assessment of surveillance laws and practices. The safeguarding benefits of the relevant institutions is assessed alongside their weaknesses. The historical lack of transparency regarding the operation of these bodies is a central theme. When judicial decisions are secret, the same risks to foreseeability arise as when executive interpretations are secret. In a sensitive field like surveillance, there is also a significant risk of judicial capture. Potential paths of improvement are assessed, with an emphasis on returning power to the citizen through increased transparency.
