🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."