Bahrain to argue at UK supreme court it has immunity from surveillance claims

"Bahrain is to tell the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from claims it placed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents when they were living in London. The Gulf country has lost the sovereign immunity claim both in the high court and court of appeal, and a decision to take the case further to the supreme court shows how important it is to the country's reputation."

"If Bahrain was to win, the ruling would have wider implications for how authoritarian countries use digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK. The supreme court hearing, beginning on Wednesday, will be focused on whether the two men have the right to claim damages due to Bahrain's claim of immunity, and not on whether damages are applicable."

"Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal in October last year upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not give Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims. The ruling will also provide clarity in relation to other spyware claims being brought on behalf of clients by the international team at the law firm Leigh Day."

Bahrain will argue before the UK Supreme Court that it has sovereign immunity against claims that it installed surveillance software on two dissidents' computers while they lived in London. The country lost identical immunity claims in the high court and the court of appeal, which applied Section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 excluding immunity for personal injury caused in the UK. The hearing will determine whether the men have the right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity assertion, rather than deciding entitlement to damages. The claims allege FinFisher/FinSpy infection in September 2011 and resulting psychological harm, and the outcome may affect other Leigh Day cases.

Read at www.theguardian.com