🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Present Case at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Allegations The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital. Legal Battle Context Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation. Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK. Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing 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 electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims. Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK. The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients. Technical Details Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables 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 situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference. A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if certain acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury. Defense Position The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family." "Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory." The two individuals have had their nationality revoked. Legal Perspective A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."