🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, 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 balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially 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 hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."