🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, 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 remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if some activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware 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'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying 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.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."