header-logo header-logo

09 October 2024
Issue: 8089 / Categories: Legal News , National security , In Court , International , Technology
printer mail-detail

No state immunity for spy software

Foreign states cannot invoke immunity for spy software allegedly used against dissidents in the UK, the Court of Appeal has found

In Shehabi v Kingdom of Bahrain [2024] EWCA Civ 1158 last week, the court upheld an earlier High Court ruling that the Kingdom of Bahrain does not have sovereign immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 regarding its alleged use of FinSpy surveillance software to infiltrate the computers of dissidents Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed.

Shehabi and Mohammed had engaged in political activism to highlight and condemn human rights abuses in Bahrain for a number of years. They believed their laptops were infected in 2011 by the malicious software FinSpy, which records voice calls, messages, emails, contacts lists, browsing history, documents and videos, and allows recording of live audio from the laptop’s microphone and camera.

The case centred on whether a foreign state whose agents abroad cause spyware to be installed on the computers of individuals in the UK, causing those individuals psychiatric injury, is entitled to immunity from civil proceedings.

Dismissing all three grounds of Bahrain’s appeal, Lady Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, and two Lords Justice of Appeal held the remote manipulation of a computer located in the UK is an act within the UK, a foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, and personal injury under s 5 of the 1978 Act includes standalone psychiatric injury.

Ida Aduwa, senior associate solicitor at law firm Leigh Day, representing Shehabi and Mohammed, said: ‘This measured and detailed ruling sets an important precedent and will provide greater protection to dissidents living in the UK who are targeted by the states whose deplorable actions they are working to fight against.’

The facts of the case are similar to Al-Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2022] EWHC 2199 (QB), [2023] QB 475 in which the High Court rejected Saudi Arabia’s argument that s 5 of the 1978 Act applies only to private law acts and not to foreign state-authorised acts in the UK. The appeal in Al-Masarir was dismissed before it could be heard. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll