ABSTRACT
This chapter covers how dialogue between the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The chapter critically analyses recent attempts by the European and British courts to ask and answer that question. It examines the decisions such as Home Office v Tariq, this chapter will argue that gisting's ability to act as any form of safeguard is all too easily hollowed out by arguments about overriding public interests. Lord Kerrs dissent began by articulating a concern about the policy considerations underlying the arguments of the Home Office, and the reasoning of the majority. The House of Lords faced at least two tasks, it had to interpret and apply A's approach to secret evidence in the UK context. Also explains the current controversy over gisting, and the current contours of that debate, it is necessary to track the ways in which those lines of dialogue developed over time in the case law of the European and British courts.
