🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country 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 handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."