🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal 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 states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends 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 fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."