🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

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

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. 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 caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – 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 permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."