🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

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

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. 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 advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."