🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Present Case at British Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Allegations The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital. Legal Battle Context The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing. If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK. Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted. Claims and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims. Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK. The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Software Capabilities Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device." Judicial Analysis The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference. A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage. Defense Position The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment." Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family." "Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil." Both men have had their nationality withdrawn. Attorney Commentary A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."