🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue 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 sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, 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 effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

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 plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction 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 sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect 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 brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."