Dissidents win in Supreme Court as it rejects Kingdom of Bahrain’s appeal over sovereign immunity from spyware claims

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege that the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers whilst they were living in London in 2011.

They have brought claims against the Kingdom of Bahrain for psychiatric injury caused by the discovery that their computers had been infiltrated with FinSpy surveillance software.  

The judgment follows an appeal hearing at the Supreme Court in November 2025 after the Court of Appeal in 2024 upheld a High Court ruling the previous year that Bahrain did not have sovereign immunity against the claims. 

In its appeal, the Kingdom of Bahrain argued that judges in the lower courts had misinterpreted section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 and unduly broadened the scope of its exception to immunity. It argued that a proper reading of the Act would afford immunity to states in cases where the actors or some of the acts causing personal injury were not located in the UK.

The Supreme Court judges rejected these arguments, stating that: 

Modern technology enables acts of surveillance to be carried out in the UK remotely. 

Even if carried out by foreign state actors located outside the UK, such acts involve an infringement of UK territorial sovereignty. 

The wording of s.5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 is ‘clear and unambiguous’ and means that a foreign state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if other causative acts take place abroad and the actor is not present in the UK. 

The Supreme Court judgment has now settled the scope of section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978. A foreign state cannot rely on state immunity to escape accountability for personal injury caused by acts within the UK, even where other causative acts take place abroad and the state’s agents are not present in this country. The court has recognised that a rigid distinction between the location of an act and its effects is artificial and unprincipled, and that the remote manipulation from abroad of computers located in the UK is an act within the UK for the purposes of section 5. 

This ruling provides a clear foundation for the other spyware claims Leigh Day’s international team is running on behalf of dissidents targeted while living in the UK.  

Dr Shehabi and Mr Mohammed, both prominent Bahrain pro-democracy activists allege that their laptops were infected in September 2011 with malicious surveillance software known as FinSpy, a product made by the Gamma group. They believe that the infection was carried out, directed, authorised or caused by the Bahraini government or its agents.  

FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from the devices it infects, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device’s microphone and camera.   

Dr Shehabi and Mr Mohammed are represented by Leigh Day solicitor Ida Aduwa and senior partner, Martyn Day. 

Dr Saeed Shehabi, said:  

“It has taken many long and difficult years to reach this moment. The hardest part of being targeted by alleged state-sponsored hacking is the feeling that nowhere is safe.

“Today's judgment means the Bahraini regime can no longer hide behind state immunity. This is not just a victory for us, but for everyone targeted by authoritarian states beyond their own borders. The Court's message is clear: states that abuse people on British soil will be held accountable.

“I dedicate this victory to the people of Bahrain and the families of Bahrain's martyrs, who lost their lives under torture and repression simply for daring to dream of justice and an end to authoritarian rule.”

Moosa Mohammed said:  

“This victory changes the balance of power.

“My claim is that since I was a teenager, the Bahraini regime has tortured, imprisoned and hunted me. Even after I found safety in the UK, they pursued me across borders. Today, the tables have turned. I am no longer the one being chased. I am chasing justice. I am chasing accountability. The era of abusing victims while hiding behind state immunity is over.

“I dedicate this victory to those still suffering torture and abuse in Bahrain’s prisons. Today should give them hope that accountability is possible. 
 
Martyn Day, senior partner at law firm Leigh Day, said: 

"I am delighted with the Supreme Court’s judgment. The notion that foreign governments can allegedly use sophisticated spyware to interfere with computers and mobile phones of people living in this country is an outrage and I am so pleased the Supreme Court has decided the normal immunity from suit would not apply in this instance.  

"It was a close thing with the decision being 3:2 in favour of our clients but a win is a win and that will be the law for a long time to come. I am particularly pleased for the clients, not just those bringing this case but all the others we have represented who claim to have been impacted by spyware from countries as diverse as Rwanda, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It is hopefully a clear message from our courts ‘not on our turf’." 

Ida Aduwa, solicitor at law firm Leigh Day, said:

“After more than six years in the courts, the Supreme Court has confirmed the argument we built this claim around: a foreign state that reaches into the UK to spy on dissidents living here cannot hide behind state immunity, even if some of its conduct takes place abroad. Section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 was enacted long before Pegasus or FinSpy existed, but the principle it sets out - that states can be held to account in the English courts for personal injury caused within this jurisdiction - has never been more important than it is today. 

“Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed have shown extraordinary courage and persistence in bringing this case, and today’s judgment vindicates them. But it will do more than that. For the many human rights defenders, journalists and members of civil society who have made the UK their home in the belief that it would offer them protection, the English Courts are now demonstrably open to them.  

“Transnational repression is a problem states are increasingly exporting across borders, and the Supreme Court has today made clear that state immunity cannot be used as a shield for the targeting of critics on British soil. 

“The Supreme Court has rightly rejected the Kingdom of Bahrain’s argument that it had sovereign immunity from any legal consequences from the alleged hacking of our clients' computers when they were living here in the UK. 

"This ruling sends a clear message to overseas states that use intrusive surveillance technology against peaceful political activists and others that they will face justice in the courts.

“Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues. The Supreme Court’s decision will give victims of this type of illicit surveillance a clear legal route to achieve justice and accountability for the harms done to them.” 

Background on the claimants 

Dr Shehabi, 71, is a pro-democracy activist, journalist and leading figure in the Bahraini opposition movement. He is a leader of the Bahrain Freedom Movement and founder of a Bahraini pro-democracy organisation called Al Wefaq. He has lived in the UK since 1973 and gained British citizenship in 2002.  

The Bahraini government has repeatedly and publicly denounced Dr Shebabi, as a result of his political activism. In July 2009, his home in the UK was set on fire, days after two of his Bahraini associates, who were political activists who had campaigned against the Bahraini government, were beaten up outside Euston Station in London. He believes that this attack was also motivated by his political activities, and that individuals acting on behalf of the Bahraini government were responsible. 

Mr Mohammed, 45, is a photographer and videographer and an activist for human rights and democracy in Bahrain. While living in Bahrain he engaged in activism and protests in support of human rights, democracy and improved employment opportunities. As a result, he was repeatedly arrested, detained, tortured and mistreated by the Bahraini police. After this he fled to the UK in 2006 as a refugee and has since been granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

Since living in the UK Mr Mohammed has taken part in, photographed, and helped to organise protests in the UK. He has also frequently communicated with individuals in Bahrain about the human rights abuses taking place there and has published information about their experiences online. The Bahraini government has publicly condemned Mr Mohammed on account of these activities. 

In November 2012, the Bahraini Ministry of Foreign Affairs included Dr Shehabi and Mr Mohammed on a list of Bahraini nationals who have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.