🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Argue at British Supreme Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London. Legal Battle Context Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation. If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom. Key Focus of Legal Proceedings The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted. Claims and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations. Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom. The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients. Software Capabilities Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera." Judicial Analysis The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference. A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage. Bahrain's Stance The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents." Claimants' Comments Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence 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 transnational repression on British soil." The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked. Legal Perspective A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."