🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

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

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if 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 protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."