🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly 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 permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."