🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise 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 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

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 "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating 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 opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."