🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture 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 located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving 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 legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."