🇬🇧 United Kingdom →

Two Bahraini pro-democracy activists brought civil proceedings alleging that agents of Bahrain had remotely infected their computers in the United Kingdom with spyware, conducted intrusive surveillance and caused them psychiatric injury. By a majority, the Supreme Court held that section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 applies where legally causative acts occur in the United Kingdom, even though the operation was initiated abroad and the foreign State’s agents were never physically present there. The installation and operation of spyware on computers located in the United Kingdom, including the accessing and exfiltration of data and activation of cameras and microphones, constituted causative acts within the jurisdiction. Bahrain was therefore not entitled to State immunity, and its appeal was dismissed; Lord Leggatt dissented, considering that an act occurs where the human actor is located rather than where its effects are produced.

The case concerned a Portuguese national facing two competing extradition claims for substantially overlapping cybercrime-related conduct: a United States extradition request under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 and a Portuguese arrest warrant under Part 1. The requested person preferred extradition to Portugal and challenged the Home Secretary’s decision under section 179 of the 2003 Act to defer the Portuguese warrant until the United States request had been disposed of. The High Court held that the decision-making process was procedurally unfair because the Home Secretary had refused to receive representations from the requested person, the United States and Portugal, despite the significant consequences of choosing between competing extradition claims. Relying also on the CJEU judgment in OP v Procureur de la République, the Court interpreted section 179 consistently with the need to consider all the circumstances of the case, including the interests of the requested person. The Court further found that the decision was vitiated by material factual errors and by a failure to take relevant considerations into account, and therefore quashed the decision so that the matter could be reconsidered by the Home Secretary.

The UK Supreme Court considered whether, in extradition cases based on conviction warrants, courts may take into account the possibility of early release under the law of the requesting State when assessing proportionality under Article 8 ECHR.The appellant was sought by Poland to serve a two‑year sentence for fraud. She argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with her private and family life, partly because she might be eligible for early release under Polish law.The Court reviewed conflicting approaches in domestic case law and held that the mere possibility of early release is relevant but carries little weight. Courts in the requested State should not attempt to predict the likelihood of early release, as this would involve speculative assessment of foreign law and undermine principles of international comity.Only in rare and exceptional cases, supported by clear evidence, may a court attach greater weight to early release prospects. Ultimately, the Court endorsed a cautious approach: acknowledging early release as a factor but generally giving it minimal significance in the Article 8 proportionality balancing exercise.Although the extradition warrant was withdrawn (as the sentence had effectively been served), the Court ruled on the legal issues due to their general importance.