🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."