🔗 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 computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate 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.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."