🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."