🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."