🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Argue at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital. Court Proceedings Context The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation. Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom. Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable. Allegations and Evidence Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims. Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK. The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals. Software Capabilities Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device." Judicial Analysis The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference. A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage. Defense Position The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices." Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones." "Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory." The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn. Attorney Commentary A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."