🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

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

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

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

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

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "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 malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, 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 target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."