🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."