🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Present Case at UK Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital. Legal Battle Context Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation. Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK. Key Focus of Legal Proceedings The supreme court hearing, 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 damages are applicable. Allegations and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims. Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state 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 handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals. Technical Details Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device." Legal Interpretation The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference. A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury. Bahrain's Stance The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices." Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact 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 use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory." The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn. Legal Perspective A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."