🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Argue at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Allegations The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital. Court Proceedings Background Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing. Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom. Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing The supreme court hearing, 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 damages are applicable. Allegations and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing 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. Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK. The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Technical Details Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera." Legal Interpretation The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference. A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage. Bahrain's Stance The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents." Claimants' Comments Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment." Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family." "Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil." The two individuals have had their nationality revoked. Attorney Commentary A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."