🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased 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 target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."