🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."