On Monday 27 July, the Supreme Court handed down judgement in the case of Kingdom of Bahrain v Shehabi and Mohammed [2026] UKSC 25. The underlying claim was brought by two Bahraini pro-democracy activists living in the UK, who claimed that their laptops were hacked by the Bahraini state using “FinSpy” spyware. The issue in the appeal was whether a foreign state whose agents remotely install spyware on claimants in the UK, causing psychiatric injury to those being spied upon, is entitled to immunity from civil proceedings within the meaning of section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978.
Both the High Court and Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the claimants holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the claim, as the act took place in the UK. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision by a majority (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen and Lady Simler), rejecting Bahrain’s claim to immunity. In dissenting judgements, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows held that the majority opinion is inconsistent with international law and the European Convention on State Immunity. Read the Supreme Court’s press summary here. Matrix Chambers, Twenty Essex Chambers and Essex Court Chambers, Blackstone Chambers, Farrer & Co, Leigh Day, Amnesty International and Birmingham Law School Research Blog have more information.
The UK Supreme Court will review the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under terrorism legislation after granting the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, permission to appeal on human rights grounds. The High Court ruled that the designation was unlawful, however the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The case, expected to be heard after the summer, could have significant implications for UK terrorism laws, while the government says it will strongly defend the ban, arguing it targets criminal activity rather than lawful pro-Palestinian protest. The BBC, Guardian, Novara, Sky News, The Independent, Scottish Legal News, LBC, The Mirror and Middle East Eye covered the development.
The Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John, Baroness Lawrence, and other claimants who lost their privacy case against Associated Newspapers are now facing a potentially multi-million pound legal costs bill. After their claims of unlawful information gathering were dismissed following an 11-week High Court trial, the publisher is seeking full costs on an indemnity basis, arguing the claimants conducted the litigation unreasonably. The claimants maintain they acted honestly and in good faith, describing an indemnity costs order as harsh and unjustified, particularly as their £16.2 million insurance may not cover the full liability. Nicklin J reserved judgment on the costs decision. The BBC, Guardian, London Evening Standard, FT, The Telegraph, and The Law Society Gazette have more information.
Data privacy and data protection
The ICO has carried out search warrants at properties across the UK as part of a joint regulatory crackdown on suspected nuisance marketing alongside the Financial Conduct Authority, Advertising Standards Authority and Solicitors Regulation Authority. The regulators are tackling the mismanagement of motor finance claims that are linked to missold schemes. The ICO is investigating five companies who are thought to have sent around 170 million unwanted text messages about car finance claims in the past year. It has urged companies to ensure they are complying with the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations.
Surveillance
Whilst giving evidence to the Spycops Inquiry, senior officer Jon Boutcher explained that he quickly concluded the undercover Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) had to be shut down after finding it had conducted unjustified surveillance on thousands of political activists. Most of the groups that were infiltrated posed little or no threat to public order. He concluded the SDS had caused “incalculable harm”, resisted reform, and failed to focus on genuine terrorist threats, leading to its closure after 40 years of operation. The Guardian reported on the evidence.
Newspaper journalism and regulation
The Press Gazette has an article explaining why publishers named the suspect in the killing of Anne Widdecombe, prior to his charge, despite the reporting restrictions arising from recent case law and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The article suggests that the Daily Mail, who were the first paper to name Joshua Kerry, would have made the assessment that he was likely to be charged and therefore any potential claim for damages would likely be unsuccessful.
Artificial intelligence
A senior UK tribunal judge has criticised the Home Office for potentially relying on AI-generated false information to reject a Moroccan woman’s asylum claim, according to The Guardian. When refusing her case, the Home Office, and subsequently a FTT judge, relied on a purportedly independent and authoritative document, known as a country policy information note, however this document could not be found. The judge said the missing evidence appeared consistent with an AI hallucination and described its use as comparable to relying on bogus evidence.
Mischon de Reya has an article analysing Anthropic’s proposals for regulating open AI models.
IPSO
- 00355-26 Husband v The Sunday Times, 1 Accuracy, 2 Privacy, Breach – sanction: action as offered by publication
- 00456-26 Muslim Association of Britain v The Times, 1 Accuracy, No breach – after investigation
Statements in open court and apologies
Essex Police and Crime Commissioner Roger Hirst has apologised to Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson after the High Court ruled his comments in a LBC interview could be construed to mean there were reasonable grounds to investigate her for inciting racial hatred. Hirst admitted he should not have made the allegations against Pearson, which related to a police investigation into a social media post that was later dropped without charges. Pearson also received substantial five-figure damages. The Press Gazette and The Telegraph have more information.
New issued cases
There were two new miscellaneous claims issued in the Media and Communications List this week.
Last week in the courts
On Monday 27 July 2026 there was the penalties hearing for two breaches of undertakings given in settlement of a harassment claim. Griffiths J committed the defendant to prison for 28 days after determining that only an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate, having regard to the seriousness of the matter. 5RB has more information here.
On Wednesday 29 July 2026, the Court of Appeal (King, Warby and Whipple LJJ) handed down judgment in the case of Bridgen v Hancock [2026] EWCA Civ 991. The appeal was allowed and former health secretary Matt Hancock was granted summary judgment in the libel claim brought against him by former MP Andrew Bridgen. Mr Hancock had expressed the opinion that a tweet by Mr Bridgen was antisemitic in character. The Court of Appeal held that the opinion was one that an honest person could hold on the basis of the uncontroversial facts; that no other conclusion could reasonably be reached at a trial; and that Mr Bridgen’s allegation that Mr Hancock did not hold the opinion should be struck out. 5RB, BBC, Law360 and The Independent cover the judgment.
On the same day, Fordham J handed down judgment in the defamation case of Mktrchyan v 2TROM Media Group Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 1923 (KB). The Judge awarded Mr Mktrchyan £105,000 in general and aggravated damaged in his defamation claim against 2Trom Media Group and its director Viktor Tokarev, the publishers behind The London Post website. The claim related to an article that carried a meaning that Mr Mktrchyan “is the key player in an Uzbekistan corruption network, which embezzles state funds using offshore accounts and launders money to gain political favours; and used the purchase of a controlling stake in Asia Alliance Bank in 2022 by his company, Gor Investment Ltd, as a front for him to embezzle state funds and corruptly seize control of state assets in Uzbekistan” [6]. Fordham J’s approach to the question of harm is set out at [15].
On the same day, Fordham J handed down judgment in the contempt of court application in the case of Garrett v Schestowitz (No.2) [2026] EWHC 1948 (KB). The application follows the libel trial in the matter of Garrett v Schestowitz and Schestowitz [2025] EWHC 3063 (KB), in which the claimant Dr Matthew Garrett was awarded £70,000 in damages and an injunction was granted requiring the Defendants to remove content from their blogs and refrain from publishing similar content. Dr Garrett alleged that Dr and Mrs Schestowitz had failed to comply with the terms of the injunction. Fordham J found that Dr Schestowitz was in contempt of court having committed 42 contemptuous breaches of the injunction, and Mrs Schestowitz was in contempt of court having committed six contemptuous breaches of the injunction. The Brett Wilson Media Law blog has more information.
As mentioned above, on 29 and 30 July 2026, there was a hearing in the case of Baroness Lawrence and Ors v Associated Newspapers before Nicklin J to consider the judgment and consequential orders.
On Friday 31 July, Fordham J handed down judgment in the case of Tooley v Times Media Ltd [2026] EWHC 2027 (KB). The application follows two earlier judgments from Steyn J [2026] EWHC 675 (KB), in which the Claimant’s applications for an interim injunction and a Norwich Pharmacal order were refused, and of DJ Nutley in the family court [2025] EWFC 81(B). In the Family Judgment, DJ Nutley decided what could be published by the press about family proceedings involving the Claimant and her husband. Fordham J refused the application to strike out or grant the Defendant judgment in respect of: (a) the claim for misuse of private information; (b) the claim for breach of confidence; or (c) the claim for defamation insofar as it relates to what the Claimant said in a video about the actions of the police, bullying, harassment and intimidation. Fordham J did enter judgment for the Defendant on the claims for malicious falsehood and set a deadline for the Claimant to file and serve new Draft Amended Particulars of Claim [38].
Media law in other jurisdictions
Azerbaijan
On 27 July 2026, The Baku Court of Serious Crimes sentenced nine journalists and media actors linked to Toplum TV, the Institute for Democratic Initiatives (IDI) and the Third Republic Platform to a combined 121 years in prison. The defendants received sentences ranging from 12 to 15 years. The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, International Federation of Journalists have more information.
Canada
On 29 July 2026, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the anti-SLAPP application in VinFast Auto Canada Inc. v Ngo, 2026 BCSC 1420. The defamation and anti-SLAPP case relates to online commentary and articles questioning whether VinFast Auto Canada Inc vehicle origins and company practices (such as posts questioning whether import models were accurately labeled “Made in Vietnam”) and will proceed to trial.
On 28 July 2026, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation appeal in the case of Smith v. Nagy, 2026 ONCA 545. The appellant appealed the dismissal of her sexual battery claim against her former husband and a defamation judgment against her for a Facebook post alleging he sexually and physically abused her. The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred by placing the burden on the appellant to prove non-consent in the battery action, this did not result in a miscarriage of justice because the trial judge made affirmative findings that she had consented. The Court also held that the trial judge correctly required the appellant to prove the truth of her allegations in the defamation action, declining to extend the reverse onus for consent in battery cases to defamation claims involving allegations of battery. The appeal was dismissed.
China
The New York Times has an article on surveillance of foreigners in China prompted by an unsecured police dashboard, which revealed how the authorities track foreigners by collecting and aggregating vast amounts of private data.
Research and resources
- Froomkin, Putting the Brakes on a No-Drive List (2026) University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper, forthcoming
- Ferguson, Digital Policing after Chatrie (2026) Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, forthcoming.
- Swire, Ahmad and Specter, Encryption and Globalization 15 Years Later: End-to-End Encryption and the Third Round of the “Going Dark” Debate (2026) Fordham International Law Journal (forthcoming).
- Vagle, The Deep Roots of Technology Industry Antiregulatory Strategy (2026) 18 Ne. U. L. Rev, forthcoming
- Nguyen, Old Propaganda, New Technology: EU Governance of Deepfake Disinformation in Conflict Settings (2025) Peace Human Rights Governance (forthcoming).
- Harris and Kaufman, Consumer Law Meets the New Company Store (2026) 73 UCLA Law Review, Protect Borrowers Research Paper, forthcoming.
- Gibson and Cotropia, Slowing Down AI with IP (2026) GWU Legal Studies Research Paper, forthcoming.
- Marco Colino, China’s ‘Innovation-then-Regulation’ Digital Platform Strategy (2026) Friso Bostoen (ed), Global Platform Regulation (Cambridge University Press, 2027).
- Starr, The First Amendment, Federal Employees, and the War on the “Deep State” (2026) University of Chicago Law School, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 26-21.
- Feingold, Foreword: The Universities Will Not Save Us (2026) Boston University Law Review, Volume 106, 2026.
Next week in the courts
We are not aware of any hearings listed this week.
Reserved judgments
Baroness Lawrence and ors v Associated Newspapers, heard 29 and 30 July 2026 (Nicklin J)
This Round Up was prepared by Colette Allen, the host of Newscast on Dr Thomas Bennett and Professor Paul Wragg’s The Media Law Podcast (@MediaLawPodcast).