🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys 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 been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust 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 UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."