🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin 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.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

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, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – 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 permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment 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 issues."