🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target 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 individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

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, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."