🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Present Case at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Claims The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists 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. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation. Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ 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 midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted. Claims and Evidence Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations. Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK. The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients. Software Capabilities Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera." Judicial Analysis The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated. A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury. Defense Position The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives." Claimants' Comments Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family." "Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind 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 raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."