🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

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 claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

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

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."