🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests 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 compromised 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 held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."