🔗 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 deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a 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 legal proceedings 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 violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility 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 considerable period for resolution on these issues."