🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey 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 impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."