🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if some activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect 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 allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."