🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Present Case at British Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Allegations The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London. Legal Battle Background The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing. Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom. Key Focus of Legal Proceedings The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable. Claims and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims. Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK. The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals. Technical Details Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device." Legal Interpretation The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference. A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury. Bahrain's Stance The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives." Claimants' Comments Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family." "Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil." The two individuals have had their nationality revoked. Attorney Commentary A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."