🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

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

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although certain acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."