🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."