🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity 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 other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction 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 delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."