🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio 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 represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

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 court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."