🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

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

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

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

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled 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 capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, 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 device. 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 diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."