🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state 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 decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "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 compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed 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 clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly 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 allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."