🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."