The UK Supreme Court has dismissed Bahrain's state immunity defence in a spyware lawsuit brought by two Bahraini dissidents, in a 3-2 decision that allows the case to proceed to trial. The court found alleged remote surveillance could be treated as acts carried out in the UK because the claimants and their devices were in Britain when the spyware allegedly took effect. The ruling forms part of increasing global litigation over state surveillance and spyware vendors.
UK Supreme Court Lets Spyware Lawsuit Against Bahrain Proceed in Landmark 3-2 Ruling
The Royal Courts of Justice in London [File: Jeff Spicer/Getty Images]
Britain's Supreme Court has rejected Bahrain's bid to rely on state immunity to shut down a spyware lawsuit brought by two Bahraini dissidents, clearing the way for the case to go to trial.
The ruling, delivered by a narrow 3-2 majority on Monday, holds that alleged remote surveillance of people and devices in the UK can be treated as acts carried out in Britain even when the hacking was allegedly directed from overseas. That conclusion removes a key legal obstacle and allows the claim to proceed.
Background
Saeed Shehabi, a journalist and founder of a Bahraini opposition party, and Moosa Mohammed, a Bahraini refugee, say their computers were infected in 2011 with FinSpy spyware — software capable of logging keystrokes, tracking locations and monitoring activity remotely. Both men, who live in the UK, launched proceedings in London's High Court in 2020 seeking damages for psychiatric harm.
Legal Journey
Bahrain has denied the hacking allegations and argued the alleged acts occurred outside UK jurisdiction, which it said entitled the state to immunity. The High Court rejected that defense in 2023, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision in 2024, prompting Bahrain to make a final appeal to the Supreme Court.
In its judgment the Supreme Court concluded the surveillance could be treated as carried out in the UK because the claimants and their computers were located in Britain when the spyware allegedly took effect. The decision means the factual dispute will now be resolved at trial rather than on jurisdictional grounds.
Broader Significance
Legal experts say the ruling is part of a growing body of litigation testing whether states and suppliers of surveillance tools can be held accountable in Western courts for spyware used against critics abroad. Similar high-profile cases include WhatsApp's lawsuit in the United States against the NSO Group over Pegasus.
Human rights groups have long accused Bahraini authorities of monitoring dissidents and journalists; this judgment could make it easier for alleged victims based in the UK to seek remedies in British courts.
Next steps: The case will return to the lower courts for a trial on the factual and damages issues.
Help us improve.
