🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government 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.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

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

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

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, 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 compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."