🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

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

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

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 cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."