🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Present Case at British Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Claims Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital. Court Proceedings Context Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing. If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom. Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable. Claims and Evidence Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims. Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom. The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Software Capabilities Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device." Judicial Analysis The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action 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 psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if some activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury. Bahrain's Stance The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly 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 allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil." The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked. Attorney Commentary A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."