🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek 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 Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."