🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, 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 UK, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."