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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll