🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed 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 appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights 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 track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled 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 duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments 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 UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."