🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme 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 governments utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers 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 experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."