🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

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

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. 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 placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."