🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests 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 endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."