🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. 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.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, 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 infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."