🔗 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 spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

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

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

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

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a 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 computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."