🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Argue at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Allegations Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital. Legal Battle Context Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing. If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK. Central Issue of Legal Proceedings The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable. Claims and Evidence Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations. Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom. The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Technical Details Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera." Legal Interpretation The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated. A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage. Defense Position The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility 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 held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory." Both men have had their nationality revoked. Attorney Commentary A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."