🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. 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 brought to justice 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 Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."