Neurotechnology has left the lab and walked into courtrooms. As new rules about ‘mental privacy’ take shape, we ask a simple question: how can brain evidence help judges and juries without eroding human agency?

Imagine a routine hearing where a prosecutor asks to admit an electroencephalography (EEG) decoding model to show intent. The defence worries about overreach. The judge wants guardrails. This is no longer science fiction. In late 2025, the UNESCO adopted the first global ethics framework for neurotechnology. It treats ‘neural data’ as sensitive, raises the bar for consent, and places guardrails on non‑clinical uses in schools and workplaces. These are ‘soft law’ principles, but they already set the tone for national rules. They also mirror values that criminal courts apply every day: autonomy, proportionality, and the duty to do no harm. 

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy added a clear message in March 2025. Neurodata should be handled with precaution, strict purpose limitation, and strong accountability because it touches mental integrity. If you work in law or policing, the direction is unmistakable. Treat information derived from the brain like the most intimate category of personal data. Build consent that genuinely informs and respects choice. 

What does this mean on the ground? Consider compelled brain imaging. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) can reveal patterns linked to cognition and emotion. They also raise hard questions under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Article 8 on private life) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A 2025 European analysis explains the tension between forensic goals and fundamental rights. Data sharing brings a second challenge. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets almost always qualify as personal data under the

© Eurasia Review