🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men 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 claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."