🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed 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 initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."