🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although some activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted 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 senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."