🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance 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 monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted 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 foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body 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 surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."