In a landmark decision, Britain’s Supreme Court has paved the way for international accountability by ruling that foreign states can be held liable in UK courts for their use of spyware against individuals, even when the hacking occurs remotely. This ruling underscores the importance of safeguarding the rights of dissidents and journalists and sets a powerful precedent for global human rights, reflecting the growing scrutiny on state-sponsored surveillance tactics that target individuals beyond their borders.
In a significant legal development, Britain’s Supreme Court has dismissed Bahrain’s attempt to assert state immunity in a case involving the alleged use of spyware against two dissidents. The ruling, delivered by a narrow 3-2 majority on July 27, 2026, marks a critical advancement in the realm of international law, affirming that foreign governments can be sued in the UK for the remote surveillance of individuals within its jurisdiction.
The case centers on Saeed Shehabi, a journalist and founder of a Bahraini political party opposing the Khalifa royal family’s regime, and Moosa Mohammed, a Bahraini refugee. Both men claimed their computers were infected with FinSpy malware in 2011—software capable of logging keystrokes, tracking locations, and monitoring activities remotely. Residing in the UK since, they initiated legal proceedings in London’s High Court in 2020, seeking damages for “psychiatric harm” caused by the alleged hacking.
Bahrain refuted the claims, arguing that the events in question fell outside UK jurisdiction and thus it was entitled to immunity. However, the High Court of Justice in London rejected this defense in its 2023 ruling, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal the following year, leading to Bahrain’s final appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling established that the alleged spying activities constituted actions taken within the UK, as the claimants and their devices were located there during the alleged infringement. This development opens the door for the case to advance to trial, creating potential implications for future litigations involving state-sponsored surveillance practices worldwide.
This judgement aligns with a wider trend of judicial scrutiny over the actions of states and spyware companies. It follows similar global cases, including WhatsApp’s ongoing legal battle against the NSO Group in the United States over the use of Pegasus spyware. Rights organizations have consistently accused regimes like Bahrain of engaging in systematic surveillance of dissidents and journalists, further emphasizing the need for mechanisms to hold such states accountable.
As the world becomes increasingly linked through digital communication, the legal systems of countries like the UK are stepping up to protect the rights of individuals from harmful foreign actions, fostering an atmosphere where the sanctity of personal privacy and freedom of expression can prevail. This ruling not only fortifies the legal framework governing international human rights but also sends a strong signal that the usage of invasive surveillance technology will face scrutiny and potential legal repercussions.
#PoliticsNews #MiddleEastNews