🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

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, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."