🔗 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 installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."