{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01619047619047619, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.331325301204819, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Judicial Oversight of Surveillance: The Case of Ireland in Comparative Perspective

This chapter examines how judicial oversight can regulate state surveillance, with a particular focus on Irish, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Union (EU) law.It begins by considering the general arguments for judicial oversight and the types of oversight structures which can be used, from ex ante authorisation to ex post review and the variants in between.It then examines the extent to which Irish, ECHR and EU law require judicial oversight in particular circumstances - particularly in light of the landmark decision of the Court of Justice in Digital Rights Ireland v. Minister for Communications invalidating the Data Retention Directive.Next, it takes as a case study the Irish experience of data retention and discusses how judicial oversight of data retention has operated and why it has failed to secure the rights of the individual.It concludes with suggestions for improving the effectiveness of judicial oversight surveillance.