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

Legal Battle Background

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

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

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, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "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 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."