🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Argue at British Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Claims Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London. Legal Battle Context The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing. If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom. Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted. Allegations and Evidence Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims. Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom. The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals. Software Capabilities Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera." Legal Interpretation The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated. A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury. Defense Position The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised 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 am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices." Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones." "Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory." Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked. Attorney Commentary A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."