🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

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

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."