🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

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

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, 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 foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured 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."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."