🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

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

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, 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, although some activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating 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, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact 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 permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."