🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Evidence

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

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

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 electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."