🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Present Case at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Claims Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital. Legal Battle Context Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation. Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK. Key Focus of Legal Proceedings The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted. Allegations and Evidence Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims. Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom. The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients. Software Capabilities Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device." Judicial Analysis The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence 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 action in the UK, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury. Defense Position The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "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 compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family." "Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory." Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked. Attorney Commentary A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions 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 matters."