🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected 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 responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."