🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Argue at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Allegations Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital. Legal Battle Background Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing. Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom. Central Issue of Legal Proceedings The legal proceedings, starting 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 compensation is warranted. Claims and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims. Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom. The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals. Software Capabilities Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera." Legal Interpretation The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference. A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court 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 accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family." "Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil." The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn. Attorney Commentary A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."