🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

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

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."