🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings 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 represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."