🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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 decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."