🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking 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 act in the UK, although some activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."