🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay 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 case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

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