🔗 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 spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

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

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."