header-logo header-logo

No state immunity for spy software

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

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

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll