🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states 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."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."