🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Argue at UK Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London. Court Proceedings Background Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing. If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK. Key Focus of Legal Proceedings The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable. Allegations and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. 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 legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom. The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Software Capabilities Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera." Judicial Analysis The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located 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 been violated. A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury. Bahrain's Stance The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, 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 opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing 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 experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust 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 use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil." Both men have had their nationality revoked. Legal Perspective A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."