🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim 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 stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim 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 autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

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

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

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