Bahrain is set to argue before the UK Supreme Court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from claims that it placed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents while they were living in London. The Gulf nation has lost previous immunity claims in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and its decision to escalate the case underscores the importance of the matter to its reputation.
The Supreme Court hearing, beginning on Wednesday, will focus on whether Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed have the right to claim damages, not on the merits of their allegations. They claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers in September 2011, causing psychological harm. The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain immunity, citing Section 5, which denies immunity for personal injury caused by acts in the UK.
The Court of Appeal found that remote manipulation of a computer in the UK constituted an act within the UK, even if the hacking originated abroad, as it interfered with UK territorial sovereignty. It also ruled that 'personal injury' includes standalone psychiatric injury. The High Court had previously found, based on expert evidence, that the claimants had proved on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents.
If Bahrain wins, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states use digital spyware to monitor political dissidents in the UK. Shehabi and Mohammed, represented by law firm Leigh Day, welcomed the hearing. Shehabi said it sends a clear message to foreign governments pursuing peaceful opponents, while Mohammed stressed that abusive states must be held accountable and cannot hide behind diplomatic immunity.
