🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."