🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."