🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Claims The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in London. Legal Battle Context The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation. Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom. Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted. Claims and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims. Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK. The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Technical Details Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera." Legal Interpretation The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated. A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage. Defense Position The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment." Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones." "Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory." Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn. Legal Perspective A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."