🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."