🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country 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 matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed 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 high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."