🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised 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 held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."