🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus 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 Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence 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 action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention 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 am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."