🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

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 country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."