🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country 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 provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations 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 recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

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

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."