🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."