🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

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, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although some acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence 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 allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."