🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

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 hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

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 plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."