🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

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 psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

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

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."