🔗 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 deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."