🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, 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 am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."