🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK 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 overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, 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 founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."