🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."